# Is the New Covenant equal to the Covenant of Grace?



## Pergamum (Jul 10, 2017)

Does NC=CoG?

Should we use the term CoG if it is not found in Scripture? Why not just use the term New Covenant?

When did the CoG start? Promising something is different than actually starting something, right? A promise of the NC in Gen 3:15 is not the same as the beginning of the CoG is it?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 10, 2017)

1689 Baptist Confession 7:3
This covenant is revealed in the gospel. It was revealed first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation through the seed of the woman.5 After that, it was revealed step by step until the full revelation of it was completed in the New Testament.6 This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect.7 Only through the grace of this covenant have those saved from among the descendants of fallen Adam obtained life and blessed immortality. Humanity is now utterly incapable of being accepted by God on the same terms on which Adam was accepted in his state of innocence.8

5 Genesis 3:15.
6 Hebrews 1:1.
7 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2;
8 Hebrews 11:6, 13; Romans 4:1, 2ff.; Acts 4:12; John 8:56.

Note the link here between the covenant and Gen 3:15


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 10, 2017)

Promised doesn't mean enacted, right?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jul 10, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Does NC=CoG?



Didn’t the Puritans make the point that The New Covenant is a subset of the Covenant of Grace? And both are a result for the Covenant of Redemption between God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ

The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 7

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

III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace: whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

V. This covenant 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 fore-signifying 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.
*[The New Covenant]

Q. 92. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the _new covenant_, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.

In other words, - The New Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace, but the COG is larger in scope than the NC going back to, as you mentioned, Gen. 3:15


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 10, 2017)

According to the Westminster Confession, the one single Covenant of Grace is administered in two dispensations (no pun intended): first, under the old covenant, second under the new covenant. So both the old and new covenants make up the Covenant of Grace, but in the words of the Confession, they are administered differently. IE, the old covenant was the gospel but the gospel through promises, pictures and types (Canaan, the sacrifices, Passover, etc), while the new covenant is the same "substance or essence" but is given loosed of all its old covenant types and shadows. The old covenant includes the Gen.3:15 promise, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David; they all were part of the Covenant of Grace but in all of these manifestations they were "clothed" with the earthly, revealed less clearly, contained additional parts that would later pass away (OT ceremonial laws likened to the external fuel tank that drops off the space shuttel when it's no longer needed), etc etc. We could say the old covenant was Christ and the gospel promises fore-shadowed, the new covenant is those same things fulfilled. The old covenant was Christ and the gospel promised; the new covenant is the salvation wrought through Christ actually performed.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 10, 2017)

Pergs,

If the NC was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 10, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Pergs,
> 
> If the NC was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)


How could the NC be enacted when the mediator had not come and his blood had not been shed? Did you mean to say the CoG?

OT believers partook of the NC/CoG retroactively in the same way that the blood of Jesus applies to elect sinners whose sins were passed over (Rom. 3:24–26).


----------



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

This is a distinction between many of our baptist brethren and Presbyterian/reformed.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 10, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Does NC=CoG?
> 
> Should we use the term CoG if it is not found in Scripture? Why not just use the term New Covenant?
> 
> When did the CoG start? Promising something is different than actually starting something, right? A promise of the NC in Gen 3:15 is not the same as the beginning of the CoG is it?


Obviously, this is where Baptist federalism and Presbyterian federalism will disagree. Both agree that the NC is the CoG (to what extent may differ). But where the difference lies is what is NOT the CoG, i.e. the Old Covenant and even Abrahamic Covenant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 10, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> How could the NC be enacted when the mediator had not come and his blood had not been shed? Did you mean to say the CoG?



Yes, I meant to say CoG.
So, my question was meant to be, "If the _CoG_ was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)

Either they participated in the CoG or they did not. If they did, then the CoG predated the Incarnation.


----------



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

Timotheos said:


> Both agree that the NC is the CoG


 
I'm not sure id agree with this. The distinction is that baptists seem to say the NC IS the CoG, whereas classic reformed covenant theology says the NC is OF the CoG (I.e an administration).


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 10, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I'm not sure id agree with this. The distinction is that baptists seem to say the NC IS the CoG, whereas classic reformed covenant theology says the NC is OF the CoG (I.e an administration).


No disrespect, but if you had quoted me fully, that would have assuaged your complaint. I said, "Both agree that the NC is the CoG (to what extent may differ)." Your clarification was the extent to which I was referring, namely the administration.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 10, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Yes, I meant to say CoG.
> So, my question was meant to be, "If the _CoG_ was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)
> 
> Either they participated in the CoG or they did not. If they did, then the CoG predated the Incarnation.


I suppose you didn't read the rest of my post? I said, "OT believers partook of the NC/CoG retroactively in the same way that the blood of Jesus applies to elect sinners whose sins were passed over (Rom. 3:24–26)."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 10, 2017)

_Partaking *retro*actively _is something someone does who is living in the present, but entering (as it were) a past event.

Part of this confusion is lack of precision in terms. Timotheos, kainos' question is still on the table. He asks "what is the covenant the OT believer is *in*." You seem to indicate that there is a _*pro*spective _engagement of them with the _benefits _of the NC, which benefits are _*retro*jected _to previously living saints. But that still does not answer to what covenant those persons were living in during their time in the world, if it is not the CoG active and in operation/administration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



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

Timotheos said:


> No disrespect, but if you had quoted me fully, that would have assuaged your complaint. I said, "Both agree that the NC is the CoG (to what extent may differ)." Your clarification was the extent to which I was referring, namely the administration.



You still seem to not understand what I'm saying. Using the word "is" as in "the NC is the CoG" equivocates the two covenants as one. Saying that the NC is of or an administration of (which baptists deny) makes the NC one of other covenants under the over arching CoG.


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 10, 2017)

As others are handling the more important question, I'll just throw in an answer to this one:


Pergamum said:


> Should we use the term CoG if it is not found in Scripture?



The implication is that our theological vocabulary should conform to Scriptural vocabulary. This approach has always led to obscurity and left the door open for heresy. Consider such important theological terms as _Trinity _or _Omnipresence._ Such language reflects an interpretation of the Scriptures, rather than a bare reading. This works to clarify the truth on the one hand, and to clarify heresy on the other hand. Think of terms like _annihilationism._ Theological vocabulary distinct from Scriptural vocabulary allows us to give names to both orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Herald (Jul 10, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Promised doesn't mean enacted, right?



Or not enacted fully; this is the "now and not yet" aspect of the New Covenant. We are partakers of Christ (through the Spirit), but we are not yet in His presence in the eternal state. One day we will be (1 Cor. 13:12).


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 10, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Promising something is different than actually starting something, right?



This depends on who you are. If you are a human being, these are probably different, though they could overlap.

If you are a human trying to define God's intention and will, this gets trickier, because you have to decide (and define) whether you are going to try and describe things in some linear fashion, or you are going to try and describe things from an eternal perspective (non-chronological).

From God's perspective, the question is not humanly relevant, because _promising and starting are the same thing_. (To me, this is part of the crux of the misunderstanding of covenant theology).


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 10, 2017)

They were save


kainos01 said:


> Pergs,
> 
> If the NC was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)



OT believers are saved by the Covenant of Grace, too. 

A promise of a coming covenant is not the same as the actual enacting of such a covenant, right?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 10, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Yes, I meant to say CoG.
> So, my question was meant to be, "If the _CoG_ was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)
> 
> Either they participated in the CoG or they did not. If they did, then the CoG predated the Incarnation.



So you would say that the OT believers participated in the CoG even though the CoG was not yet enacted? That is what I believe now. 

That there are Participants in the CoG in the OT. OT believers participated in the Covenant of Grace such that it can be said that the Covenant of Grace was effective immediately after the Fall. 

Can it still be said that the CoG did not happen until Christ even if OT believers participate in it before it is enacted? It's enacting was with Christ, but can it be said that OT believers were saved by the promises of the Cov of Grace or by the actual Cov of Grace itself, and if they are saved (even retroactively) by the Covenant of Grace in the OT, then this means that the Cov of Grace was active and a reality in the OT as well, right?


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 11, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> You still seem to not understand what I'm saying. Using the word "is" as in "the NC is the CoG" equivocates the two covenants as one. Saying that the NC is of or an administration of (which baptists deny) makes the NC one of other covenants under the over arching CoG.


I will strive to be more precise in my language. I certainly understand the Paedobaptist view of 1 substance of the CoG administered differently under the OC and the NC. I was not trying to say your view equates the NC w/ the CoG, thus my remark about the extent that the NC is the CoG.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 11, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> _Partaking *retro*actively _is something someone does who is living in the present, but entering (as it were) a past event.
> 
> Part of this confusion is lack of precision in terms. Timotheos, kainos' question is still on the table. He asks "what is the covenant the OT believer is *in*." You seem to indicate that there is a _*pro*spective _engagement of them with the _benefits _of the NC, which benefits are _*retro*jected _to previously living saints. But that still does not answer to what covenant those persons were living in during their time in the world, if it is not the CoG active and in operation/administration.


This is where my precision lacks in theology. My field is Biblical Studies. I should have said (?) that the NC/CoG applies retroactively upon the OT saints.

The question is a good one. I want to say a covenant of works wherein the gospel is revealed. It is not THE covenant of works (perfect obedience leading to eternal life as in Eden) but a covenant of works wherein the promise of the CoG was revealed (Gen. 3:15, 12:3, etc.) and thus faith in the promise for justification while the works aspect was to guarantee the physical seed life in the physical promises. Beyond the promise of the CoG was also the typological signs imbedded in the signs and seals and sacrifices. This corresponds with our confession LBC 7:3...



> This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 11, 2017)

Tim, I am curious about your formulation here. If the CoG applies retroactively to the OT saints, then how would you explain language such as that of Galatians 3 ("those who are of faith are the children of Abraham") which seems to apply the Abrahamic covenant prospectively, rather than the NC retroactively? Then, in the same chapter, there is also the language of the seed of Abraham being Christ Himself, which also points in the direction of Christ being the sum and substance of the Abrahamic covenant.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 11, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Tim, I am curious about your formulation here. If the CoG applies retroactively to the OT saints, then how would you explain language such as that of Galatians 3 ("those who are of faith are the children of Abraham") which seems to apply the Abrahamic covenant prospectively, rather than the NC retroactively? Then, in the same chapter, there is also the language of the seed of Abraham being Christ Himself, which also points in the direction of Christ being the sum and substance of the Abrahamic covenant.


Let's start w/ the basis that in 1689 federalism, the Abr. Cov. is not of the CoG but reveals it via promise. Also note that dual nature of the Abr Cov: physical seed (OC) and spiritual seed (NC), thus the allegory of Gal. 4 and the 2 covenants related to the Abr Cov. That said, the Abr Cov reveals through promise the spiritual seed and the typological realities in which they will enjoy via the NC and its mediator of the NC and THE seed of Abraham--Jesus. So I am the seed of Abraham due to my union with Jesus THE seed of Abraham. I enjoy the promises made in the Abr Cov that find fulfillment in the NC/CoG. The CoG is revealed in the Abr Cov and concluded in the NC (borrow from 17th century PBs). So what is being applied prospectively is the promises God made in the Abr. Cov. which is only fulfilled and made possible via Jesus and the NC, not the Abr. Cov. itself. Thus the sign of circumcision which passed to the Mos. Cov. is abrogated. This then relates to the OP's question.

So here is what is going in in 17th century Particular Baptists federal theology. Reformed Covenant Theology had variations within it, especially concerning the Mosaic Covenant. PB simply continued to reform that same thought process of the Mosaic Cov, seeing the connection between the Mos. Cov. and Abr. Cov., and moved the same issues of matter and form back to the Abr. Cov. (credit to Sam Renihan for showing me this)


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 11, 2017)

Tim, thanks for this. Two questions: Galatians 4 is speaking of the Abrahamic covenant in relation to the Mosaic covenant (or perhaps a distortion of the Mosaic, in some Reformed formulations), correct? On what exegetical basis do you hold that it is talking about a dual nature of the Abrahamic with no seeming reference to the Mosaic? Paul explicity says "Sinai," after all. 

Secondly, as I read the NT, it seems to me that both the physical and spiritual aspects of the promise find fulfillment in Christ (even the land promise!), such that both physical and spiritual promises come to believers. I am not convinced that "promise" somehow equals "absent." Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day. Paul says in Romans 4 that Abraham was justified by faith in Christ Jesus. It seems more logical, then, to posit an organic unfolding covenant, in which salvation is always present, even if it has a more shadowy aspect in OT iterations.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Does NC=CoG?
> 
> Should we use the term CoG if it is not found in Scripture? Why not just use the term New Covenant?
> 
> When did the CoG start? Promising something is different than actually starting something, right? A promise of the NC in Gen 3:15 is not the same as the beginning of the CoG is it?


There is One Covenant of Grace in the Bible, in the sense that any and all sinners have been saved by the Cross of Christ and His resurrection, bu that the New Covenant of Grace was ushered in at time of Christ, and that the church came in at Pentecost, as that would be the Baptist understanding on this question.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 11, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Tim, thanks for this. Two questions: Galatians 4 is speaking of the Abrahamic covenant in relation to the Mosaic covenant (or perhaps a distortion of the Mosaic, in some Reformed formulations), correct? On what exegetical basis do you hold that it is talking about a dual nature of the Abrahamic with no seeming reference to the Mosaic? Paul explicity says "Sinai," after all.


As I read the allegory, the 2 women represent 2 different covenants related to Abraham (Gal. 4:24a, "Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants."). We see then that the 2 covenants allegorized are not then the Abrahamic Covenant (AC) and the Mosaic Covenant (MC). The 2 covenants organically relate to Abraham. Sarah allegorically represents the NC and the Jerusalem above (4:26, "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.") which relates to the AC via the spiritual promises. Hagar represents the physical/typological aspects from the OC (Gal. 4:24b, "One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.") which relates the AC via physical seed and land and so on, circumcision being one obvious organic relationship between the AC and OC.



greenbaggins said:


> Secondly, as I read the NT, it seems to me that both the physical and spiritual aspects of the promise find fulfillment in Christ (even the land promise!), such that both physical and spiritual promises come to believers. I am not convinced that "promise" somehow equals "absent." Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day. Paul says in Romans 4 that Abraham was justified by faith in Christ Jesus. It seems more logical, then, to posit an organic unfolding covenant, in which salvation is always present, even if it has a more shadowy aspect in OT iterations.


Would you not say that the physical nature of the land promised to Abraham was fulfilled either in Joshua's time or Solomon's time (or both)? The land is typologically forecasting Jesus (part of my ThM thesis was how the vomiting in Rev. 3 was an allusion from Lev. 18 & 20 of the Promised Land vomiting thus making the PL a type of Jesus) and New Creation.

As far as the promised/absent issue, I am not sure to what you are referring. But I would agree that salvation is always present. But where we would disagree is that while all justified are in the CoG, we are disagreeing as to when the CoG was active in the saving. Abraham and every other elect OT saint was a part of the CoG, but they only participate in the CoG in a retroactive sense, namely they believe in the promises revealing a CoG, and the benefits of the CoG are retroactively assigned to them prior to it being instituted by Jesus in the NC. I know I have repeated myself, so I'm not sure what you are driving at w/ Rom. 4. In the same way that justification by faith and union with Christ happened to Abraham before the incarnation and cross-work of Jesus, yet it applied to him retroactively, we would use the same logic for the CoG.

I feel like I am missing you objection. I'm sure it is me, not you. Apologies if I am not answering your objection.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> As I read the allegory, the 2 women represent 2 different covenants related to Abraham (Gal. 4:24a, "Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants."). We see then that the 2 covenants allegorized are not then the Abrahamic Covenant (AC) and the Mosaic Covenant (MC). The 2 covenants organically relate to Abraham. Sarah allegorically represents the NC and the Jerusalem above (4:26, "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.") which relates to the AC via the spiritual promises. Hagar represents the physical/typological aspects from the OC (Gal. 4:24b, "One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.") which relates the AC via physical seed and land and so on, circumcision being one obvious organic relationship between the AC and OC.
> 
> 
> Would you not say that the physical nature of the land promised to Abraham was fulfilled either in Joshua's time or Solomon's time (or both)? The land is typologically forecasting Jesus (part of my ThM thesis was how the vomiting in Rev. 3 was an allusion from Lev. 18 & 20 of the Promised Land vomiting thus making the PL a type of Jesus) and New Creation.
> ...


All of the OT saints were saved by God applying the credit from Calvary towards their sin debt acct on credit so to speak.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 11, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> As I read the allegory, the 2 women represent 2 different covenants related to Abraham (Gal. 4:24a, "Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants."). We see then that the 2 covenants allegorized are not then the Abrahamic Covenant (AC) and the Mosaic Covenant (MC). The 2 covenants organically relate to Abraham. Sarah allegorically represents the NC and the Jerusalem above (4:26, "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.") which relates to the AC via the spiritual promises. Hagar represents the physical/typological aspects from the OC (Gal. 4:24b, "One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.") which relates the AC via physical seed and land and so on, circumcision being one obvious organic relationship between the AC and OC.


I/we do not see how one arrives at 2-covenants _with Abraham _unless one has brought it to the text.

The women are viewed as signs/allegories of two covenants. Only _one of the women _is regarded as legitimate and wife, that's Sarah. To extend the metaphor, _*she's*_ the _covenant _with Abraham. Hagar is not legitimate as wife; she's not covenanted at all, but is a slave and a concubine. Hagar is then identified first with Sinai, then with the Jerusalem-below ("that now is"). Jerusalem-above is tied directly to Abraham via Sarah. Sinai is turned into a covenant of interposition, something temporary that must be removed so that the original, Wifely covenant can come into its own.

Then follows the Is.54 quote, honoring Sarah (the desolated), who ends up with more children than "she who had the man." That last bit of phrasing is a deliberate slight, making it clear that the first to bear a child does not bear a legitimate son; but only the son of the Wife is legitimate. The point being: one must belong to the Abrahamic covenant (by faith, through the true son/Son) and then he inherits all things. If all one has is Sinai, then it is as if he is at best Ishmael, and therefore is no heir. Those who presently have the Jerusalem-below _think _they've got the inheritance. They do not.


----------



## malcolmmaxwell60 (Jul 11, 2017)

The new covenant is a promise to all those who are in Christ Jesus. As Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. So all of God's people in the old and new are part of the Covenant of grace 

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## malcolmmaxwell60 (Jul 11, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> According to the Westminster Confession, the one single Covenant of Grace is administered in two dispensations (no pun intended): first, under the old covenant, second under the new covenant. So both the old and new covenants make up the Covenant of Grace, but in the words of the Confession, they are administered differently. IE, the old covenant was the gospel but the gospel through promises, pictures and types (Canaan, the sacrifices, Passover, etc), while the new covenant is the same "substance or essence" but is given loosed of all its old covenant types and shadows. The old covenant includes the Gen.3:15 promise, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David; they all were part of the Covenant of Grace but in all of these manifestations they were "clothed" with the earthly, revealed less clearly, contained additional parts that would later pass away (OT ceremonial laws likened to the external fuel tank that drops off the space shuttel when it's no longer needed), etc etc. We could say the old covenant was Christ and the gospel promises fore-shadowed, the new covenant is those same things fulfilled. The old covenant was Christ and the gospel promised; the new covenant is the salvation wrought through Christ actually performed.


Yes 

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 12, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> They were save
> 
> 
> OT believers are saved by the Covenant of Grace, too.
> ...


All sinners who ever were saved are saved due to the Cross of Christ, and that Covenant of Grace was finalized at time of death of Jesus for sinners. This is why we baptists see the actual church existing from Pentecost forward.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 12, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> I will strive to be more precise in my language. I certainly understand the Paedobaptist view of 1 substance of the CoG administered differently under the OC and the NC. I was not trying to say your view equates the NC w/ the CoG, thus my remark about the extent that the NC is the CoG.


This discussion does highlight some real distinctions/differences between reformed Presbyterians and Baptists regarding this issue.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> All sinners who ever were saved are saved due to the Cross of Christ, and that Covenant of Grace was finalized at time of death of Jesus for sinners. This is why we baptists see the actual church existing from Pentecost forward.[/QUOT



No. I believe the Church existed with the first believers, perhaps Adam and Eve.

Even the NT calls Israel "the church in the wilderness."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 13, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> No. I believe the Church existed with the first believers, perhaps Adam and Eve.
> This is one of the main differences between reformed baptists and presbatraina, as we would see the Church actually strting up at pentacost.
> Even the NT calls Israel "the church in the wilderness."


This is one of the main differences between reformed baptists and Presbyterians, as we would see the Church actually strting up at pentacost.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 13, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I/we do not see how one arrives at 2-covenants _with Abraham _unless one has brought it to the text.
> 
> The women are viewed as signs/allegories of two covenants. Only _one of the women _is regarded as legitimate and wife, that's Sarah. To extend the metaphor, _*she's*_ the _covenant _with Abraham. Hagar is not legitimate as wife; she's not covenanted at all, but is a slave and a concubine. Hagar is then identified first with Sinai, then with the Jerusalem-below ("that now is"). Jerusalem-above is tied directly to Abraham via Sarah. Sinai is turned into a covenant of interposition, something temporary that must be removed so that the original, Wifely covenant can come into its own.
> 
> Then follows the Is.54 quote, honoring Sarah (the desolated), who ends up with more children than "she who had the man." That last bit of phrasing is a deliberate slight, making it clear that the first to bear a child does not bear a legitimate son; but only the son of the Wife is legitimate. The point being: one must belong to the Abrahamic covenant (by faith, through the true son/Son) and then he inherits all things. If all one has is Sinai, then it is as if he is at best Ishmael, and therefore is no heir. Those who presently have the Jerusalem-below _think _they've got the inheritance. They do not.


Just to be clear, I was arguing that Paul sees 2 covenants arising from the Abr. Cov.--the OC (Hagar) and the NC (Sarah). He says as much in 4:24. This corresponds to the reality of the dual nature or dichotomy to the Abr. Cov. The first is physical and typological, the second is spiritual or salvific and anti-typical. Paul is simply expounding on the dual nature of the Abr. Cov. in Gal. 4.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 13, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Just to be clear, I was arguing that Paul sees 2 covenants arising from the Abr. Cov.--the OC (Hagar) and the NC (Sarah). He says as much in 4:24. This corresponds to the reality of the dual nature or dichotomy to the Abr. Cov. The first is physical and typological, the second is spiritual or salvific and anti-typical. Paul is simply expounding on the dual nature of the Abr. Cov. in Gal. 4.


You were clear at first. 4:24 doesn't say there's two covenants "arising" from the Abrahamic covenant. Was there a covenant with Hagar? or Ishmael? No, there's the Abrahamic, which is liberty (to which Isaac, and believers now, and all faithful in between belong, v28). And the Siniatic, which is bondage. That's all it says.

Like I said, you have to bring it *to *this text. You have to believe there's a "dual nature/dichotomy" in Abraham's cov. _a priori_. Everyone works with what he thinks are implications, whether from a text or impacting a given text from related passages. Those are distinct from the data set given by the text.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 13, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> You were clear at first. 4:24 doesn't say there's two covenants "arising" from the Abrahamic covenant. Was there a covenant with Hagar? or Ishmael? No, there's the Abrahamic, which is liberty (to which Isaac, and believers now, and all faithful in between belong, v28). And the Siniatic, which is bondage. That's all it says.
> 
> Like I said, you have to bring it *to *this text. You have to believe there's a "dual nature/dichotomy" in Abraham's cov. _a priori_. Everyone works with what he thinks are implications, whether from a text or impacting a given text from related passages. Those are distinct from the data set given by the text.


I could rightly argue that you are bringing to the text your interpretation just as easily. But the text seems pretty clear concerning the covenants. 4:24 say the 2 women (Hagar and Sarah) represent 2 covenants. So to assert there was no covenant with Hagar is incorrect. If you are speaking historically, then I'd agree. But that is what makes this an allegory rather than a typology. Hagar is representing the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai. 

I do not believe Sarah is representing the Abr. Cov. unless you bring that to the text. Taken as an allegory, and understanding the trajectory nature of this passage (Hagar first on the trajectory forward from Abraham to Mt. Sinai), it seems clear that the further trajectory and the Jerusalem above relates to the NC. This is also consistent contextually since ch. 4 is part of the argument of ch. 3 which situates itself off-gate w/ NC fulfillment of the Spirit (3:2, 14). 

For the allegory to work at all, Abraham (representing the Abr. Cov.) having 2 covenants arising from him, the 2 women represent 2 covenants that relate to Abraham but are not the Abr. Cov. Otherwise the allegory falls apart. 

Even further, the pastoral purpose of the allegory is in 4:31–5:1, "Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. Christ has liberated us to be free. Stand firm then and don’t submit again to a yoke of slavery." If the allegory was to urge the Galatian churches not to return to the yoke of circumcision in the OC, then (1) why would he argue to be a part of the circumcision covenant of Abraham? and (2) how could this argument even work on a redemptive historical understanding with "submitting again". They have moved forward to the freedom of the NC from the civil trappings of the OC (cf. ch. 2 and eating laws as an example). But you would have them not go back from the OC to the NC but from the OC further to the NC. Regardless of your view of the CoG and the Abr. Cov., your interpretation fails on a redemptive historical timeline for this text.

So this is not _a priori_ brought to the text. This is rooted in exegesis and context. 

My interpretation of the 2 women are further confirmed by commentators like Ryken (in the _Reformed Expository Commentary_) who claims that "Hagar stands for the old covenant" (p. 185) and "Sarah represents the new covenant" (p. 186). Likewise, Calvin said, "The two covenants, then, are the mothers, of whom children unlike one another are born; for the legal covenant makes slaves, and the evangelical covenant makes freemen."

Sorry for the long post.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 13, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> I could rightly argue that you are bringing to the text your interpretation just as easily. But the text seems pretty clear concerning the covenants. 4:24 say the 2 women (Hagar and Sarah) represent 2 covenants. So to assert there was no covenant with Hagar is incorrect. If you are speaking historically, then I'd agree. But that is what makes this an allegory rather than a typology. Hagar is representing the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai.
> 
> I do not believe Sarah is representing the Abr. Cov. unless you bring that to the text. Taken as an allegory, and understanding the trajectory nature of this passage (Hagar first on the trajectory forward from Abraham to Mt. Sinai), it seems clear that the further trajectory and the Jerusalem above relates to the NC. This is also consistent contextually since ch. 4 is part of the argument of ch. 3 which situates itself off-gate w/ NC fulfillment of the Spirit (3:2, 14).
> 
> ...


Baptists take that to be as you stated it being, as we would see more of a disconnect between the 2 Covenants then our Presbyterian brethren would see more of a continuity between two of them.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 13, 2017)

I guess I should apologize also, in advance, for this long post.


Timotheos said:


> So to assert there was no covenant with Hagar is incorrect.


There's no covenant with Hagar. End of story. If there is one, then it is in Genesis. There is none in Genesis. Paul doesn't invent one for the Genesis account in Galatians. He is interpreting Scripture and redemptive history. The covenant he refers to is Sinai. He makes analogy (allegory) from Sinai to Hagar and to Ishmael (gives birth to bondage).

To say: this _implies _there must be previous _covenant, _appears to me a superfluous requirement. Sarah "gave Hagar to him to wife," Gen.16:3, but Scripture repeatedly denies the marital legitimacy of this union. You say: without the concept of two covenants arising from the one man Abraham (neither of these being _his covenant, _per se) the allegory falls apart--ergo, an antecedent necessity.

It may be that such a read is necessary according to your understanding of the pattern of biblical covenants. But if the covenant with Isaac is the SAME covenant as Abraham's, then it is clearly not the case the allegory falls apart; so I'm not caught on the horns of that dilemma you posed, since I believe Isaac's is the SAME covenant inherited from his father (he, the heir, in reference to the promise).



Timotheos said:


> But that is what makes this an allegory rather than a typology. Hagar is representing the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai.


This inverts Paul's expression. Sinai is the covenant, Hagar IS the _allegory. _The definitional distinction between "type" and "allegory" is too fine. You seem to trade heavily on the idea that there's some unique hermeneutic at work in this text, and unless one has that filter on, the allegory falls apart. I disagree. It's all RH interpretation.



Timotheos said:


> I do not believe Sarah is representing the Abr. Cov. unless you bring that to the text.



I'm bringing Sarah to the text and to the Abrahamic covenant? No, I'm recognizing that she's present in the text in parallel to Hagar; and she's _by name _connected to the covenant by God himself, Gen.17:15,19; 18:9-10, etc. This is not reading her into the text or the Abrahamic covenant; it's refusing to read her out.

---Sarah is the wife of Abraham (Gen.12:5; 17:15; 25:10, et passim; Mal.2:14; cf. Prv.2:17; Ps.55:20).
---She's "the freewoman," v22-23 and v30-31.
---She's the mother of "he" (Isaac) _through promise, _v23; which promise refers to the covenant (Gen.12:3; 15:4-5; cf. Ps.105:9 for synonymous parallelism).
---She's then connected analogically (in parallel to Hagar/Sinai/Jerusalem-now-is) to "Jerusalem above," v26, to which all believers are tied, v28 and v31.
---She's the _allegorical _(i.e. type, analogy) reference of Isaiah in his comment, ch.54:1, "barren" and "desolate;" which is why Paul appeals so adroitly to that text. Paul isn't being original in his interpretation; he's been preceded by Isaiah.​
Abraham's two sons provide the biblical starting point for the help-to-understanding Paul aims to provide (answering: Who is the true seed, the covenant-heir?). The mothers are brought into the picture because of the two sons, and the contrasting natures of the two women are highlighted, and by their conceptions, by their deliveries; and their destinies. Vv28 & 31 say, as plain as can be, "we and Isaac are children of promise... children of the freewoman." We are tied to this woman, Sarah; and she is the covenant-wife.

Finally, you are making (consistent with your Baptist convictions, I know this) the matter of circumcision to be _of the essence _of the Abrahamic covenant--you call it "the circumcision covenant." But we deny this, on the same basis we deny that baptism is _of the essence _of the New Covenant, "the baptism-covenant." The sign is not the thing signified; even if they are intended to be intimately connected. My wedding band is not my marriage, nor a piece of the essence of it; but I'm not taking it off _just to prove how meaningless a sign actually is._ Operationally, signs are not trivial.

But signs are open to change, for various reasons. And the big reason for the Galatians not submitting to circumcision was that taking on this passé covenant-sign served as a wedge, to get the yoke of legal-acceptance with God on the necks of Christians; effectively making Christianity a mere sect of Judaism, thus nullifying the cross of Christ. They were not aiming at getting Galatian Christians to join the Abrahamic covenant; but the Siniatic, and that as the Pharisees understood it to teach.

The problem facing the Galatians is that--because they accepted Paul's preaching of Christ--they were already in possession of the inheritance of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Moses, and all the rest of OT hope. If from this place, they accepted the Judaizer's arguments (that Paul got them so far, but not far enough), they were "fallen from grace." They were joining with those who were heirs of Ishmael, not Isaac; heirs of Sinai not Zion; heirs of the present Jerusalem and Temple, and not heirs of the Jerusalem above where Christ intercedes in a Temple not made by hands.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 14, 2017)

Maybe this is at root of where we seem to be talking past each other. Do you understand Gal. 4:21ff to be an allegory or simply a redemptive-historical and typological explanation? The difference is that in a typological approach "the connection between type and antitype must hold historically in order to justify the connection." (Meyer, Jason C.. _The End of the Law_, p. 118). However, allegory does not rely on historical accuracy but "Paul can characterize Hagar as an allegorical covenant, even though a historical covenant connected with Hagar did not exist." (Ibid.)

I take this passage as an allegory. You seem to take it as typological. Am I correct?

For what it's worth, Calvin (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iii.vi.iv.html) seemed to take this as an allegory:



> Again, as the history which he quotes appeared to have no bearing on the question, he gives to it an allegorical interpretation.... In a word, Paul adduces the history, as containing a figurative representation of the two covenants in the two wives of Abraham, and of the two nations in his two sons.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 14, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Maybe this is at root of where we seem to be talking past each other. Do you understand Gal. 4:21ff to be an allegory or simply a redemptive-historical and typological explanation? The difference is that in a typological approach "the connection between type and antitype must hold historically in order to justify the connection." (Meyer, Jason C.. _The End of the Law_, p. 118). However, allegory does not rely on historical accuracy but "Paul can characterize Hagar as an allegorical covenant, even though a historical covenant connected with Hagar did not exist." (Ibid.)
> 
> I take this passage as an allegory. You seem to take it as typological. Am I correct?
> 
> For what it's worth, Calvin (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iii.vi.iv.html) seemed to take this as an allegory:


Paul Himself stated that it was as you see it being.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 14, 2017)

In simple, I think Paul's is standard christic and apostolic exegesis of the OT, what in Reformation circles we generally call RH interpretation.

I don't think such a fine hermeneutical distinction as proposed above is found in terms, in particular this _hapax legomena, _Paul's use of "ἀλληγορούμενα." I see no need to presuppose a technical use of this Greek term as if borrowed from authors (early or late) who freely interpreted the Poets, or Philo's adaptation from them for his own free interpretation of Moses and the Prophets; rather than allowing this text (as with Scripture generally) to reveal this author's intent.

For my part, I don't see any reason to think Calvin parses any difference between "typological" and "allegorical" interpretation. From his commentary: after a digression into the abuse of the term *allegory* in the history of interpretation (under v22), Calvin uses the following variety of words indiscriminately to express Paul's sense of the passage: allegory, mystical or ἀναγωγή (anagogical), type, and figure/figurative/prefigured; along with "resemblance" and "comparison" (referring to σύστοιχα) for which he might have employed the synonym "analogy," which pertain to the correspondences that are set up. The vital thing is to catch the point of similarity. Calvin seems to think that those familiar with the Scriptures (or expected to be) should have no trouble observing the true connections.

In his own explanation of what ἀλληγορούμενα actually imports for Paul's use (as he prepares to explain him), he points to a number of OT elements that hardly anyone disputes are "types," such as circumcision, sacrifices, and the Levitical priesthood; he implies that the same "allegory" belonging to those things is still present in our sacraments. Sinai is to "Hagar" as Christ is to "Passover." Abraham's family is the prefigured church; and "most memorable events which happened in it are so many types to us." In those words he tells us he's about to explain Paul's meaning typologically; for so he takes Paul's own intent by his own term.

Calvin is adamant about retaining the historical meaning. He will not depart from it. "In a word, Paul adduces the *history*, as containing a figurative representation of the two covenants." There can be no doubt but for Calvin the sacred history in detail is _the key_ to unpacking the spiritual truth. The history he has in mind here is particularly Gen.15-18 & 21; but not disconnected from the wider narrative to include the Torah. I would deny that Calvin is the least interested in departing from thoroughgoing "historical accuracy."

When the author (Meyer) writes that Paul characterizes Hagar as an allegorical covenant, I can take him one of two ways. I would prefer taking him to mean that the woman _in her historical relations to holy history _is rightly regarded as prefiguring later events and words beyond her history. The results are a sharper and fuller understanding of revelation in total.

Yet, based on our previous exchanges I'm not sure I can take him that way. Please correct me, but have you not proposed that Hagar-as-allegory is actually _reified _not beyond her historical relation to holy history, but actually within it? I may have misunderstood your intent, but the impression I have is that you see Gen.17 in some manner laying the initial foundation stone for the Mosaic legal-covenant (via circumcision). This reading might then give rise to that first-one/then-another interpretation of covenants (plural) with Abraham, in temporal progress making ch.22 contain a kind of "third" covenant (and ch.26 a "fourth" in succession, with Isaac, etc.).

Plainly, I'm not seeing but one covenant with Abraham. So far in Galatians, Paul has referred by the specific term "covenant": to the promise to Abraham 430yrs prior to the law, 3:17. So arguably when 4:22ff comes, he has already introduced both the covenants that primarily he wishes to contrast. Multiplying covenants with Abraham? Scripture speaks of but one, even speaking of one with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which after-generations are said to possess. Which promises are wholly spiritual, wherein Calvin agrees, comments on v28.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 15, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> As I read the allegory, the 2 women represent 2 different covenants related to Abraham (Gal. 4:24a, "Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants."). We see then that the 2 covenants allegorized are not then the Abrahamic Covenant (AC) and the Mosaic Covenant (MC). The 2 covenants organically relate to Abraham. Sarah allegorically represents the NC and the Jerusalem above (4:26, "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.") which relates to the AC via the spiritual promises. Hagar represents the physical/typological aspects from the OC (Gal. 4:24b, "One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.") which relates the AC via physical seed and land and so on, circumcision being one obvious organic relationship between the AC and OC.
> 
> 
> Would you not say that the physical nature of the land promised to Abraham was fulfilled either in Joshua's time or Solomon's time (or both)? The land is typologically forecasting Jesus (part of my ThM thesis was how the vomiting in Rev. 3 was an allusion from Lev. 18 & 20 of the Promised Land vomiting thus making the PL a type of Jesus) and New Creation.
> ...



I do not see how one could arrive at two covenants made with Abraham from Galatians 4. The point of the contrast is between "under the law/slavery" (verse 21,23) and "freedom" (verse 26). How would this correspond in any way to the differences between Genesis 15 and 17? Even circumcision in Genesis 17 is not associated with slavery, but with promise. If Paul had wanted to contrast Genesis 15 with Genesis 17, then bringing in "Sinai" (THE mountain associated with the _Mosaic_ covenant) would be just about the most unclear way of doing so imaginable. Sinai is simply not associated with Abraham. Just bringing in Hagar does not prove that Sinai now refers to an Abrahamic covenant. In what sense, then, would they be "under the law?" Under the law has to refer to Torah in some sense, which was not given during the time of Abraham. It seems to me that the only viable interpretations of Galatians 4 are that 1. Paul is contrasting Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants _simpliciter_; or 2. Paul is contrasting Abrahamic with a distortion of the Mosaic covenant. 

As to the land, what I mean is that the promise of land is a gradually unfolding promise that has many iterations and crescendos until it is fulfilled finally in the new heavens and new earth. I don't think we can limit it to Joshua and Solomon. The as yet unfulfilled promises of the prophets would seem to prove that.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 15, 2017)

Here is what I found. 
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...s-about-galatians-law-and-gospel-are-opposed/


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 17, 2017)

There is quite a significant amount of misunderstanding going on in this discussion. Please allow me an attempt to clarify (so we can discuss actual disagreement, rather than misunderstood disagreement).

First, with regards to the New Covenant being efficacious prior to its formal inauguration as a covenant in the blood of Christ, please consider what Berkhof says:


> 1. The first revelation of the covenant. The first revelation of the covenant is found in the protevangel, Gen. 3:15. Some deny that this has any reference to the covenant; and *it certainly does not refer to any formal establishment of a covenant*. The revelation of such an establishment could only follow after the covenant idea had been developed in history. At the same time *Gen. 3:15 certainly contains a revelation of the essence of the covenant*…
> 
> Up to the time of Abraham there was no formal establishment of the covenant of grace. While Gen. 3:15 already contains the elements of this covenant, it does not record a formal transaction by which the covenant was established. It does not even speak explicitly of a covenant. The establishment of the covenant with Abraham marked the beginning of an institutional Church.
> 
> Excerpt From: Louis Berkhof. “Systematic Theology.” iBooks.



Berkhof believes that prior to the formal establishment of the Covenant of Grace, the elect were still saved by the Covenant of Grace. 1689 Federalism believes the same thing. We simply argue that the New Covenant, rather than the Abrahamic Covenant, was the formal establishment of the Covenant of Grace. OT saints received the grace of the New Covenant prior to its establishment in the blood of Christ in the same way that they received the grace of the atonement prior to Christ's death. Retroactive may or may not be the best way to describe this. They received the grace in their own day. They did not wait until a future date to receive it. They could receive the benefits of Christ prior to Christ earning them because Christ swore to the Father in the CoR that he would earn them, making it a guarantee. We believe that the New Covenant is union with Christ. So all we are talking about is receiving Christ's benefits through union with Christ prior to his life and death. That presents no greater difficulty for us than it does for anyone else.

Second,


> _I do not see how one could arrive at two covenants made with Abraham from Galatians 4... How would this correspond in any way to the differences between Genesis 15 and 17?_



I may have missed it, but no one is arguing that there were two Abrahamic covenants. No one has argued that Genesis 15 and 17 represent two different Abrahamic covenants. That is not at all what Tim has said or what I would say or what 1689 Federalism says. When we speak of the duality of the Abrahamic Covenant, we very simply mean that God made different promises to Abraham that concern different things. I believe that Augustine states this very simply and helpfully:



> Now it is to be observed that two things are promised to Abraham, the one, that his seed should possess the land of Canaan, which is intimated when it is said, “Go into a land that I will show thee, and I will make of thee a great nation;” but the other far more excellent, not about the carnal but the spiritual seed, through which he is the father, not of the one Israelite nation, but of all nations who follow the footprints of his faith, which was first promised in these words, “And in thee shall all tribes of the earth be blessed.”
> 
> ...the people were settled in the land of promise, so that, in the meantime, the first promise made to Abraham began to be fulfilled about the one nation, that is, the Hebrew, and about the land of Canaan; but not as yet the promise about all nations, and the whole wide world, for that was to be fulfilled, not by the observances of the old law, but by the advent of Christ in the flesh, and by the faith of the gospel.
> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVI.16.html



We then look to the fulfillment of those two promises and observe that they correspond to two different covenants: the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. You may not agree with the interpretation, but this is not baptist eisegesis. Again, note Augustine.



> There was indeed on earth, so long as it was needed, a symbol and foreshadowing image of this city, which served the purpose of reminding men that such a city was to be rather than of making it present; and this image was itself called the holy city, as a symbol of the future city, though not itself the reality. Of this city which served as an image, and of that free city it typified, Paul writes to the Galatians in these terms: _“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not, for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond woman and her son: for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. And we, brethren, are not children of the bond woman, but of the free, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.”_ *This interpretation of the passage, handed down to us with apostolic authority, shows how we ought to understand the Scriptures of the two covenants—the old and the new.* *One portion of the earthly city became an image of the heavenly city*, not having a significance of its own, but signifying another city, and therefore serving, or “being in bondage.” For it was founded not for its own sake, but to prefigure another city; and this shadow of a city was also itself foreshadowed by another preceding figure. For Sarah’s handmaid Agar, and her son, were an image of this image. *And as the shadows were to pass away when the full light came, Sarah, the free woman, who prefigured the free city (which again was also prefigured in another way by that shadow of a city Jerusalem), therefore said, “Cast out the bond woman and her son; for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac,”* or, as the apostle says, “with the son of the free woman.” In the earthly city, then, we find two things—its own obvious presence, and its symbolic presentation of the heavenly city. Now citizens are begotten to the earthly city by nature vitiated by sin, but to the heavenly city by grace freeing nature from sin; whence the former are called “vessels of wrath,” the latter “vessels of mercy.” And this was typified in the two sons of Abraham,—Ishmael, the son of Agar the handmaid, being born according to the flesh, while Isaac was born of the free woman Sarah, according to the promise. Both, indeed, were of Abraham’s seed; but the one was begotten by natural law, the other was given by gracious promise. In the one birth, human action is revealed; in the other, a divine kindness comes to light...
> 
> *In that testament, however, which is properly called the Old, and was given on Mount Sinai, only earthly happiness is expressly promised. Accordingly that land, into which the nation, after being led through the wilderness, was conducted, is called the land of promise, wherein peace and royal power, and the gaining of victories over enemies, and an abundance of children and of fruits of the ground, and gifts of a similar kind are the promises of the Old Testament. And these, indeed, are figures of the spiritual blessings which appertain to the New Testament*; but yet the man who lives under God’s law with those earthly blessings for his sanction, is precisely the heir of the Old Testament, for just such rewards are promised and given to him, according to the terms of the Old Testament, as are the objects of his desire according to the condition of the old man. But whatever blessings are there figuratively set forth as appertaining to the New Testament require the new man to give them effect. And no doubt the great apostle understood perfectly well what he was saying, when he described the two testaments as capable of the allegorical distinction of the bond-woman and the free,—attributing the children of the flesh to the Old, and to the New the children of the promise: *“They,” says he, “which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (Rom 9:8) The children of the flesh, then, belong to the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children; whereas the children of the promise belong to the Jerusalem above, the free, the mother of us all, eternal in the heavens. (Gal 4:25, 26) Whence we can easily see who they are that appertain to the earthly, and who to the heavenly kingdom. But then the happy persons, who even in that early age were by the grace of God taught to understand the distinction now set forth, were thereby made the children of promise, and were accounted in the secret purpose of God as heirs of the New Testament; although they continued with perfect fitness to administer the Old Testament to the ancient people of God, because it was divinely appropriated to that people in God’s distribution of the times and seasons.*



So, we believe that the Mosaic and the New Covenants are both the result of promises that God made to Abraham. Thus there is a duality to the Abrahamic Covenant. I do not agree with Hodge that there were two Abrahamic Covenants, but he was trying to get at the same concept when he said:



> It is to be remembered that *there were two covenants made with Abraham*. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a Church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and his true people. *The promises of the national covenant were national blessings*; the promises of the spiritual covenant, (i.e. of the covenant of grace) were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. *The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law*; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the seed of the woman, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. *There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace*, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the Church founded on the other.
> https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/hodge-on-the-visibility-of-the-church/



A similar concept is also seen in Kline's Two-Level Fulfillment argument against Dispensationalism.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

Can we define "formal establishment" of the Covenant of Grace?

In Genesis 3:15 it appears the Covenant of Grace was "revealed" as per the 1689 confession. Most of the Reformed speak of it then being inaugurated (though not yet consummated then), and it was certainly effective for OT believers (because they were saved). All the Reformed say that OT saints were saved due to the benefits of Christ.

So...if it was revealed and effective and its benefits were immediately and OT believers participate in it, it appears there is no harm in saying that it was active or established immediately Post-Fall.


What do you think of R. Scott Clark's quote here? How would you disagree?



> The difference between the types and the fulfillment is the difference between _inauguration_ and _consummation_. A marriage is contracted (engagement) before it is consummated on the wedding day. The inauguration is a real administration of the marriage even though it is not the consummation. To use another analogy, humans develop in stages but they are humans right the way through. An infant is _in utero_, then _post partum_, he is in diapers, short pants, jeans, and finally, as grown up, he puts on a suit. These are administrations of the same life. Paul makes this analogy explicitly in Galatians 3.
> 
> Adam, Noah, Abraham, and David were all administrations of the covenant of grace. The Scriptures themselves will not allow us to turn Abraham into a covenant of works.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

Brandon,

Also, I read your post about your disagreements with Coxe about the timing of the formal establishment of the Covenant of Grace. My question is: Some of those advocating 1689 Federalism seem to strengthen their argument by pointing out past baptists who believed the same as they do. But in many cases, these older authors (like your disagreement with Coxe, which doesn't seem to be a small and trifling point) do not totally agree with what current writers are saying. Or John Owen is often enlisted when he remained a paedobaptist his entire life. 

Do you feel like there is a lot of unity among baptists on this? Or are there many competing views? How monolithic is it?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

Rev Bruce, on an older thread, said:

"So the technically proper question is: Do the reformed recognize a "revealed/promise" phase, before being "established"?

And the answer is: No, not in the classic expression of CT. We wouldn't deny that "promise" characterizes the quality of the covenant prior to the Mediator's entrance in the flesh. But the relationship is strictly that of promise-to-fulfillment, rather than promise-to-establishment. Today, there remains aspects of fulfillment yet to come (e.g. glorification, new heavens/earth). It is undeniable that future conditions will be radically different from the present, and those will call for covenant-expressions suitable to the final state. But we don't say that our covenant is not yet established, simply because Christ has arrived, but we have not.

There is some manner of giving/establishment in Gen.3:15. There is a special formality in the covenant-expression to Abraham, Gen.12,15,&17. The promissory (gracious) and unilateral nature of the covenant is just what Paul appeals to in Gal. against the strength of a later covenant-expression (Moses/Sinai/Old) that contained so much more character of Law--although, grace very obviously was found at the core, in a right understanding of the sacrificial system.

Regardless of how Sinai is construed in relation to the overall picture, God's covenant with man is in the Mediator from the beginning. This Mediator is not even absent from the scene throughout the OT, even from Genesis, as the repeated theophanies are interpreted in light of the Person of the Son. The covenant is made from the beginning with believers, the paradigmatic case being Abraham--and all believers are reckoned the seed of Abraham by faith."


I think I agree with Bruce. The Cov. of Grace was an effective reality even in the OT. It was a promise-to-fulfillment rather than a promise-to-establishment dynamic. The Mediator was active from the OT. Therefore, I believe the Covenant of Grace was active since the Fall.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Rev Bruce, on an older thread, said:
> 
> "So the technically proper question is: Do the reformed recognize a "revealed/promise" phase, before being "established"?
> 
> ...


It has been active since the Fall, but was not fulfilled and realized in its full measure until the coming of Jesus, his death/resurrection and thus bringing the New Covenant relationship between God and man.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 18, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> I do not see how one could arrive at two covenants made with Abraham from Galatians 4. The point of the contrast is between "under the law/slavery" (verse 21,23) and "freedom" (verse 26). How would this correspond in any way to the differences between Genesis 15 and 17? Even circumcision in Genesis 17 is not associated with slavery, but with promise. If Paul had wanted to contrast Genesis 15 with Genesis 17, then bringing in "Sinai" (THE mountain associated with the _Mosaic_ covenant) would be just about the most unclear way of doing so imaginable. Sinai is simply not associated with Abraham. Just bringing in Hagar does not prove that Sinai now refers to an Abrahamic covenant. In what sense, then, would they be "under the law?" Under the law has to refer to Torah in some sense, which was not given during the time of Abraham. It seems to me that the only viable interpretations of Galatians 4 are that 1. Paul is contrasting Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants _simpliciter_; or 2. Paul is contrasting Abrahamic with a distortion of the Mosaic covenant.
> 
> As to the land, what I mean is that the promise of land is a gradually unfolding promise that has many iterations and crescendos until it is fulfilled finally in the new heavens and new earth. I don't think we can limit it to Joshua and Solomon. The as yet unfulfilled promises of the prophets would seem to prove that.


Your very first statement either needs to be nuanced or demonstrates you didn't understand me. I did not say that there were 2 covenants w/ Abraham based on Gal. 4. I'm saying the 2 covenants mentioned in Gal. 4 are organically related to the Abr. Cov.: the OC (Hagar) and the NC (Sarah). 

I think where we are parting ways concerning Gal. 4 is whether it is to be read typologically or allegorically. As Contra_Mundum has argued, there was no historical covenant w/ Hagar, therefore Paul couldn't be talking about that in a typological sense. My point is that he is using Hagar as an analogous allegory to the OC. Since the OC treats the physical seed of Abraham (both elect and non-elect), then Hagar is a fitting subject since Ishmael is also part of the physical seed of Abraham. Isaac represents the promised "spiritual" seed (prefer the idea of typological fulfillment rather than spiritual) as Galatians has been arguing in ch. 3. Thus there is an analogous connection with the NC.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Your very first statement either needs to be nuanced or demonstrates you didn't understand me. I did not say that there were 2 covenants w/ Abraham based on Gal. 4. I'm saying the 2 covenants mentioned in Gal. 4 are organically related to the Abr. Cov.: the OC (Hagar) and the NC (Sarah).
> 
> I think where we are parting ways concerning Gal. 4 is whether it is to be read typologically or allegorically. As Contra_Mundum has argued, there was no historical covenant w/ Hagar, therefore Paul couldn't be talking about that in a typological sense. My point is that he is using Hagar as an analogous allegory to the OC. Since the OC treats the physical seed of Abraham (both elect and non-elect), then Hagar is a fitting subject since Ishmael is also part of the physical seed of Abraham. Isaac represents the promised "spiritual" seed (prefer the idea of typological fulfillment rather than spiritual) as Galatians has been arguing in ch. 3. Thus there is an analogous connection with the NC.


This entire area to me seems to be a really big difference between the two camps in the reform traditions of Presbyterian and Baptists, as regarding just how to view the full manifestation of the Covenant of Grace..


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 18, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> So...if it was revealed and effective and its benefits were immediately and OT believers participate in it, it appears there is no harm in saying that it was active or established immediately Post-Fall.



First, consider Berkhof above. Second, I would recommend reading Owen's lengthy discussion of this point. It will help you understand where we are coming from. Commenting on "established" in Hebrews 8:6, he says



> This is the meaning of the word nenomoqe>thtai: “established,” say we; but it is, “reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance.” All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was now brought to light; and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had now the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church, nothing being to be admitted therein but what belongs unto it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by nenomoqe>thtai, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. Hereon the other covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship whereby it was administered. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was superinduced into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith. When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. Wherefore it was consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not unto it. And as these, being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it when it was completed as a covenant; for then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to be conformed unto it. Then it was established. Hence it follows, in answer unto the second difficulty, that as a promise, it was opposed unto the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed unto that of Sinai. This legalizing or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship thereunto belonging, did effect this alteration.





> 2. When we speak of the “new covenant,” we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though that were not before in being and efficacy, before the introduction of that which is promised in this place. For it was always the same, as to the substance of it, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and efficacy, unalterable, “everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure.” All who contend about these things, the Socinians only excepted, do grant that the covenant of grace, considered absolutely, — that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, —was the only way and means of salvation unto the church, from the first entrance of sin. But for two reasons it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect unto any other things, nor was it so under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it unto Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but it was with respect unto other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely under the old testament it consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scripture, Acts 2:39; Hebrews 6:14-16. The apostle indeed says, that the covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, before the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. And so it was, not absolutely in itself, but in the promise and benefits of it. The nomoqesi>a, or full legal establishment of it, whence it became formally a covenant unto the whole church, was future only, and a promise under the old testament; for it wanted two things thereunto: —
> 
> (1.) It wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment, by the blood of the only sacrifice which belonged unto it. Before this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the formal nature of a covenant or a testament, as our apostle proves, Hebrews 9:15-23. For neither, as he shows in that place, would the law given at Sinai have been a covenant, had it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. Wherefore the promise was not before a formal and solemn covenant.
> 
> ...


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 18, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Do you feel like there is a lot of unity among baptists on this? Or are there many competing views? How monolithic is it?



My disagreement with Coxe, in the scheme of things, is quite minor (though I think still important to consider). There are obviously disagreements between 1689 Federalism and 20th Century RB. Within 1689 Fed there are disagreements on some of the finer points, just as there is disagreement amongst paedobaptists on the details of their covenant theology.

An enumeration of the points of 1689 Federalism (to establish basis of unity on this view) was attempted in this post: http://www.1689federalism.com/2015-founders-conference-w-commentary/

I'm doing what I can to help bring unity. That primarily consists of bringing clarity.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 18, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> The Cov. of Grace was an effective reality even in the OT. It was a promise-to-fulfillment rather than a promise-to-establishment dynamic. The Mediator was active from the OT. Therefore, I believe the Covenant of Grace was active since the Fall.



I'm afraid everyone is getting caught up on the language. 1689 Federalism affirms that the Covenant of Grace was an effective reality even in the OT. 1689 Federalism affirms that the Mediator was active from the OT. Therefore we believe the Covenant of Grace was active since the Fall.

Our only point is, very simply, that the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace is not the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic. We all agree with the efficacy of the Covenant of Grace since 3:15. If you want to call that an "establishment", then go ahead, but please don't lose sight of our point. The disagreement is over whether all post-fall covenants are the Covenant of Grace, or whether only the New Covenant is. The disagreement is not over whether the CoG and the Mediator were effective and active in the OT.

http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/did-the-covenant-of-grace-exist-during-the-old-testament/


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 18, 2017)

Regarding Gal 4, the disagreement is also rooted in differing readings of Rom 9:6ff. The two passages are parallels (per Augustine).
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/they-are-not-all-israel-who-are-of-israel/


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> It has been active since the Fall, but was not fulfilled and realized in its full measure until the coming of Jesus, his death/resurrection and thus bringing the New Covenant relationship between God and man.


Yes, I believe that. Don't all the Reformed?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> I'm afraid everyone is getting caught up on the language. 1689 Federalism affirms that the Covenant of Grace was an effective reality even in the OT. 1689 Federalism affirms that the Mediator was active from the OT. Therefore we believe the Covenant of Grace was active since the Fall.
> 
> Our only point is, very simply, that the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace is not the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic. We all agree with the efficacy of the Covenant of Grace since 3:15. If you want to call that an "establishment", then go ahead, but please don't lose sight of our point. The disagreement is over whether all post-fall covenants are the Covenant of Grace, or whether only the New Covenant is. The disagreement is not over whether the CoG and the Mediator were effective and active in the OT.
> 
> http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/did-the-covenant-of-grace-exist-during-the-old-testament/


This is good to hear that the differences are not that great.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> My disagreement with Coxe, in the scheme of things, is quite minor (though I think still important to consider). There are obviously disagreements between 1689 Federalism and 20th Century RB. Within 1689 Fed there are disagreements on some of the finer points, just as there is disagreement amongst paedobaptists on the details of their covenant theology.
> 
> An enumeration of the points of 1689 Federalism (to establish basis of unity on this view) was attempted in this post: http://www.1689federalism.com/2015-founders-conference-w-commentary/
> 
> I'm doing what I can to help bring unity. That primarily consists of bringing clarity.


Thank you. Your links are helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 19, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> Therefore we believe *the Covenant of Grace was active since the Fall*.
> 
> Our only point is, very simply, that the *Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant*. The *Covenant of Grace is not the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic*.



I haven't followed every post in every thread on this subject (but this one caught my attention), so bear with me as I try to summarize:

If it is your position that the CoG was active since Gen. 3:15 and if the CoG = ("is") the NC, is it right to conclude that you believe that the NC was _coterminous with_, but _distinct from_, the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants? And, therefore, that the NC predated the earthly ministry of Christ?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2017)

> Our only point is, very simply, that the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace is not the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic.



I agree with Brandon here-I hold that the NC IS the COG. I posted this link on a previous thread and it was closed down right afterwards before anyone could interact with it. I have posted this once in the past and it was not so well rec'd. For what it's worth, here is it again:

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


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 19, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I believe that. Don't all the Reformed?


There does seem to be some differences on how we view just how much of the "Grace" was evident in the Old Covenant as compared/contrasted to the New one though.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 19, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> is it right to conclude that you believe that the NC was _coterminous with_, but _distinct from_, the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants? And, therefore, that the NC predated the earthly ministry of Christ?



I don't know what you mean by coterminous. I would recommend reading Owen if you want to fully understand what we mean when we say the New Covenant existed and was efficacious as a promise prior to its legal establishment in the death of Christ. The _grace _of the New Covenant predated the earthly ministry of Christ in the same way that the _grace _of the atonement predated the death of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 19, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> I agree with Brandon here-I hold that the NC IS the COG. I posted this link on a previous thread and it was closed down right afterwards before anyone could interact with it. I have posted this once in the past and it was not so well rec'd. For what it's worth, here is it again:
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/201...-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/


The NC would be the fullness of the CoG now becoming ushered in to Man, as there was saving grace in the OC. but no the fullest extent of that until the messiah had come to do his work here at the Cross.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2017)

Grace is grace; since the C of G started in gen 3, everyone saved comes under 'saving grace' and that grace is the same as there is only one gospel.

One might argue that the amplification of the HS at Pentecost is one treatment of a larger measure! To which I would agree, but it is still God's grace. I call this 'amplification'. Consider that all the prophets are OT. In the NT, we have no new prophets. One could argue that God's grace was more evident then. It tells us in Hebrews that in this day, Christ speaks to us through His word. We have that. Thats a large measure. In the OT, God spoke to men via messenger and face to face. We need to consider these differences.

The NC was consummated by Christ. It is the same as the C of G. As Jesus said, 'this is the new covenant in my blood'. How is this different than Abrahams day, the OT saints looking forward in anticipation, the believers that walked w/ Christ and us, looking back. Yes, Christ died in time, but His blood was efficacious all the ways back to our first parents!


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 19, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Grace is grace; since the C of G started in gen 3, everyone saved comes under 'saving grace' and that grace is the same as there is only one gospel.
> 
> One might argue that the amplification of the HS at Pentecost is one treatment of a larger measure! To which I would agree, but it is still God's grace. I call this 'amplification'. Consider that all the prophets are OT. In the NT, we have no new prophets. One could argue that God's grace was more evident then. It tells us in Hebrews that in this day, Christ speaks to us through His word. We have that. Thats a large measure. In the OT, God spoke to men via messenger and face to face. We need to consider these differences.
> 
> The NC was consummated by Christ. It is the same as the C of G. As Jesus said, 'this is the new covenant in my blood'. How is this different than Abrahams day, the OT saints looking forward in anticipation, the believers that walked w/ Christ and us, looking back. Yes, Christ died in time, but His blood was efficacious all the ways back to our first parents!


What makes the New though a new and better Covenant, as Hebrews so strongly affirms?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> What makes the New though a new and better Covenant, as Hebrews so strongly affirms?


The NC is an administration of the CoG wherein the foreshadows and promises of the past are now realized in Our Lord. The NC has no dependencies upon uncertain conditions, but rather the realized satisfaction and suretyship of Jesus Christ.

New Covenant administration represents the ultimate expression of God’s single eternal Covenant of Grace with sinners (Hebrews 13:20). That said, per Bavinck, _the road was the same on which believers in the Old and the New Testaments walked, but the light in which they walked was different_. So _in a sense_ we can say that those experiencing the New Covenant have _better promises_ (Hebrews 8:6), _a better sacrifice_ (Hebrews 9:23), _a better High Priest_ with a better sanctuary (Hebrews 7:26-8:13), and _a better hope_ than what was found in the former explicit OT expressions of the Covenant of Grace.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2017)

Exactly


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 19, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The NC is an administration of the CoG wherein the foreshadows and promises of the past are now realized in Our Lord. The NC has no dependencies upon uncertain conditions, but rather the realized satisfaction and suretyship of Jesus Christ.
> 
> New Covenant administration represents the ultimate expression of God’s single eternal Covenant of Grace with sinners (Hebrews 13:20). That said, per Bavinck, _the road was the same on which believers in the Old and the New Testaments walked, but the light in which they walked was different_. So _in a sense_ we can say that those experiencing the New Covenant have _better promises_ (Hebrews 8:6), _a better sacrifice_ (Hebrews 9:23), _a better High Priest_ with a better sanctuary (Hebrews 7:26-8:13), and _a better hope_ than what was found in the former explicit OT expressions of the Covenant of Grace.


So that would be what the writer meant when he stated in Hebrews that the OT sacrifices were all shadows and types of the realty to come, of Christ being crucified for sins?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So that would be what the writer meant when he stated in Hebrews that the OT sacrifices were all shadows and types of the realty to come, of Christ being crucified for sins?


Yes


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 19, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> I agree with Brandon here-I hold that the NC IS the COG. I posted this link on a previous thread and it was closed down right afterwards before anyone could interact with it. I have posted this once in the past and it was not so well rec'd. For what it's worth, here is it again:
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/201...-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/


Scott,

You are not a baptist, right? Is it a rare position for a Presbyterian to hold that the NC=CofG?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 19, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The NC is an administration of the CoG



I agree, Patrick, though since Scott did, too (!), could you clarify if you mean to say that the NC is an administration of the CoG which *temporally followed* other administrations of the CoG?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 19, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> I don't know what you mean by coterminous



If the NC *is* the CoG, then it would seem that you would have to say that the other post-Fall covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic) - as administrations of the CoG - are either also equal to the NC or that they are not, which would mean that they co-existed alongside (coterminous with) the NC in the OT period.
If the latter, what was their nature?

NB - for me, this is post #1689.  Seems an appropriate discussion for it!


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 19, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> they co-existed alongside



Yes.



kainos01 said:


> what was their nature?



The Abrahamic promised that Abraham would be the father of the Messiah. It also promised that he would have numerous offspring that would inherit the land of Canaan. Given Kline's interpretation of Abraham's merit of these two blessings as well as the place of circumcision and the threat of being cut off, I am inclined to understand this as a covenant of works.

The Mosaic promised tenure and prosperity in the land if Israel obeyed the Mosaic law and threatened expulsion and curses if they disobeyed. The law was given to Israel as a covenant of works. These curses were prolonged/delayed until the Abrahamic promises were fulfilled.

The Davidic promised that David's offspring would rule over Israel in Canaan if they obeyed Mosaic law. It also typologically pointed towards Christ and thus repeated the Abrahamic promise to David. Both Abraham and David would be the father of the Messiah (who would bless all nations and establish the kingdom of heaven).

In all of this, these covenants revealed the promise of the coming Messiah and provided sufficient revelation of the gospel for people to believe and be saved (which salvation was a grace of the New Covenant).


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 20, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> I agree, Patrick, though since Scott did, too (!), could you clarify if you mean to say that the NC is an administration of the CoG which *temporally followed* other administrations of the CoG?


If I had intended to mean THE CoG I would have so made it clear. Obviously I do not. The NC is an administration of the CoG. The essential substance of the CoG has never been altered from OT to NT. Before or after the incarnation, all who look to Our Lord by faith will be saved. The NC is the final administration of the CoG.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 20, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> If I had intended to mean THE CoG I would have so made it clear. Obviously I do not. The NC is an administration of the CoG. The essential substance of the CoG has never been altered from OT to NT. Before or after the incarnation, all who look to Our Lord by faith will be saved. The NC is the final administration of the CoG.


There were partial grace elements within all prior Covenants, but the NC was the completed and full fulfillment of the CoG God had instituted to be in effect after the Fall.


----------

