Old covenant saints in the NC/covenant of grace

I am aware that 1869 federalism says that the New Covenant is the covenant of grace rather than the cog being an administered in the Oc and Nc.

Would David have thought that the old covenant that he lived in/ under the administration of was purely physical? Or would he have thought that the grace he received and subsequent faith was through the gospel being preached through the old covenant administration? Would he have thought salvation was coming through the old covenant?


If the NC is the covenant of grace, then how was it being administered to the Old Testament saints when it hadn’t been inaugurated yet.

The gospel was surely coming through the old covenant. It’s not as though all the children of other nations were hearing the gospel and could believe. No, it was part and parcel of the old covenant. It wasn’t floating around separate to it. Through all the types and shadows the gospel was being preached and people coming to salvation. Explain lto me how baptists conclude that the old covenant wasn’t spiritual and administering grace to the elect within it. Because it seems like through it people were coming to faith and receiving grace and experiencing all the benefits of the covenant of grace.


The spirit gave them the gift of faith. Just like us. The covenant of Grace was surely being administered. If the new covenant is the covenant of Grace and did not exist in their time… what Grace were they receiving that worked faith in them?

Jim6 said:

what Grace were they receiving that worked faith in them?

Click to expand...

I am not a 1689 federalist. I believe they were receiving grace from the single, overarching covenant of grace as administered in the old testament.

This thread may be of use to you.

Back to your other thread, it all depends on how you view the Abrahamic covenant. If it is a dichotomous covenant, meaning there are two parts, then a distinction can be made between the gracious promise of the messiah (in line with the promise in Gen. 3:15) and the merit-based earning of the land.

David, for example, under this scheme would hold onto to Christ by faith in the promise, but must maintain obedience to stay in the land, and acts as a ‘head’ for the people of Israel as their king.

For 1689 federalists the NC ‘reaches back’ and saves the OT saints because they believed in the promise. The types and shadows pointed to the promise typologically, but were about maintenance in the land at the ground level. They failed, so they were exiled. As Dr. Renihan wrote in Kingdom, an unbeliever could have obeyed in a way to maintain their spot in the land, even without faith in Christ.

Personally, I find this understanding less convincing each day, so take that for what it’s worth.

Also for full disclosure, I have only read Kingdom And have a lot more reading to do to fully grasp the Baptist side, so I may have explained some things inaccurately.

Jim6 said:

If the NC is the covenant of grace, then how was it being administered to the Old Testament saints when it hadn’t been inaugurated yet.

Click to expand...

Let's break this down a little.

Were saints under the Old Testament saved by virtue of the shed blood of Christ? (If you say no, we have problems).

Assuming you agree that the answer is "yes", how then could saints under the Old Testament be saved by virtue of the shed blood of Christ when Christ's blood had not yet been shed?

If we agree that the saints under the Old Testament were saved by virtue of the shed blood of Christ, and if we agree that the fact that Christ's blood had not yet been shed is no barrier, then I don't see how the New Covenant not yet being formally inaugurated is any barrier either.

This question that you're asking is largely what led to my becoming Presbyterian. Studying through the Abrahamic covenant and then Romans and Galatians convinced me of this.
Also remember to update your signature

First, this isn't a "baptist" view. The idea that OT saints were saved by the new covenant is a dominant view in church history up until the reformation when the reformers departed from the Augustinian view (which Calvin acknowledges). Please carefully read the quotes here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/10/25/ot-saints-were-saved-by-the-new-covenant-quotes/

Augustine and those who followed him believed that
1) The gospel/new covenant was revealed darkly through various promises, types and shadows throughout the Old Testament time
2) The old and new covenants are two different covenants that promise different things to different people

The reformers argued that 1) necessarily entails that the old and the new are the same covenant, but that is not a valid deduction, as Owen explained when he said the majority reformed view was wrong and reverted back to the dominant Augustinian view (please read his exposition of Hebrews 8). The reformed teach that the old covenant revealed the Adamic covenant of works, but yet was not the Adamic covenant of works. Ergo, just because a covenant reveals another covenant does not mean they are the same covenant.

Second, Scriptures teaches that 1) numerous sins could not be forgiven under the old covenant (anything that you would be stoned for), and 2) no sins could be eternally forgiven under the old covenant. Carefully meditate upon Acts 13:38-39.

To answer your question, David knew that the old covenant offered him no hope. Read Psalm 51. According to the old covenant, he should be stoned to death for his sins of adultery and murder. As he acknowledges, there was no sacrifice according to the law that he could offer to atone for his sin. Calvin correctly notes "it was utterly vain for him to think of resorting to sacrifices and burnt-offerings with a view to the expiation of his guilt; that his criminality was of such a character, that the ceremonial law made no provision for his deliverance."

So what does David do? He appeals to ceremonial washing for cleansing a leper (Lev 14:8) or an otherwise unclean person (Num 19:19) to deliver him from bloodguilt, something those washings could not do. He looked above and beyond the OC sacrifices to what they pointed to (by way of analogy) - that is, to use Vos' language, his mind was elevated to a higher consciousness by the Spirit to look beyond the old covenant. "He had respect not hereby to ceremonial sprinklings and purifications, for them he would have applied to a priest; but to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, typified thereby" (Gill). "He expresses his confidence of obtaining pardon, although he brought nothing to God in the shape of compensation... resting his whole dependence upon the satisfaction of Christ... he trusted entirely to a gratuitous reconciliation" (Calvin). He asked God to blot out his transgressions, a phrase only used here, in Isaiah's prophecy of the New Cov (43:25; 44:22) and Acts 3:19 - and God did (2 Sam 12:13), even though he did not offer an Old Covenant sacrifice.

He did not "access" the blood of Christ mediately through the blood of bulls and goats, but through faith in Christ directly. He was saved by the New Covenant.

brandonadams said:

He looked above and beyond the OC sacrifices to what they pointed to (by way of analogy) - that is, to use Vos' language, his mind was elevated to a higher consciousness by the Spirit to look beyond the old covenant.

Click to expand...

I think the substantive difference here between WCF and 1689 federalism is the word 'analogy.' The fact that you invoke Vos for this seems to make that clear, because I believe it is more than analogy for Vos and WCF. In other words, it's not by way of analogy that David invokes those washings, but a sacramental and typological view where the heavenly reality is truly mediated through types and shadows.

Does this sound right?

Yes, that is what some claim. The problem is, David didn't offer any sacrifices through which the heavenly reality was mediated. Furthermore, the idea that salvation/the forgiveness of sins has to be mediated through a sacrament is unbiblical.

Here is Vos' full statement though, for what it's worth:

The Old Testament law is dispensed with because of its weakness and unprofitableness. Its weakness is not merely a matter of degree, for in reality it accomplished nothing, since it made nothing perfect and did not lead to the goal. This is further implied in the quotation from Jer. 31:31, quoted in Heb. 8:8-12. The fathers did not continue in the covenant made with them. But in the new Berith the law would be put in their minds and written in their hearts. And the further promise is added: “Their sins I will remember no more.” In both these respects, therefore, the Old Testament law is inefficacious. In verse 7 the author goes on to say that God found fault with the first covenant, for otherwise there would have been no place found for a second…

But how could a true religion exist under such a system at all? Several observations are in order. First, we may turn to the types of the Old Testament as something which should have led the people to something better. The author does not make much of this, however. The types were primarily for the people, but objectively they were for the mind of God. Nowhere in the Epistle has the author set himself really to solve the problem as stated above. Nor is it really solved in Paul’s epistles. Still there was a possibility of the significance of the sacrificial system entering into the subjective mind of the Old Testament believers, by the latter raising themselves to a higher state through [contemplation of] the types. We see an indication of this possibility first at 10:3. In the Old Testament sacrifices there was a remembrance made of sin year by year. This was necessary, since it was impossible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. This yearly practice was not intended merely for an objective purpose; it was a remembrance in the minds of the people. Because of this remembrance the Psalmist, in Psalm 40, was led to speak concerning sacrifices which would satisfy the will of God. It should be noted that it was the Psalmist who rose to this consciousness – an inspired writer, not an ordinary individual believer under the Old Testament. Still, he did write it, with the result that higher consciousness later became the common property of Old Testament believers. It was with the aid of revelation, therefore, that this higher consciousness was brought about.

Likewise Psalm 110 is quoted. Here we have the prophecy of a future Priest, after the order of Melchizedek. Thus there was the consciousness of a higher order of priesthood than the Levitical being possible, and there was the prophecy [revelation/word] that at a future time such higher priesthood would become actual. Psalm 95 is also quoted, which speaks of the rest of Canaan. This idea of rest is eschatological, looking forward to the true rest which is to come in the future. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews here again recognized, in one of the Old Testament Psalms, a certain higher consciousness on the part of the people of the Old Testament…

The Old Testament, however, had more than these mere symbols and ceremonies. It also contained direct promises, many of which were spiritual in content. And these promises were given repeatedly, from age to age. Therefore it was not necessary for the Old Testament believers to live exclusively on the basis of insight into the meaning of the types. Of these promises the author of Hebrews speaks much.

The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 64-67

Click to expand...

Either way, elect infants were saved under whatever means was provided under the Old Testament. Distinctive "Baptist" covenant theology does nothing to remove elect infants from the covenant.

For me, the key issue is when the so-called Covenant of Grace is instituted (not a biblical term by the way which can cause confusion though the idea is sound) - either in Gen 3:15 or at the cross. I see Scripture pointing to the cross as the means of salvific grace and Gen. 3:15 as a promise pointing forward to the institution of the CoG/NC and not an actual covenant. In the OC, I believe people are saved by believing God’s promises of the person and work of the future Messiah in the New Covenant (synonymous with the Covenant of Grace) rather than in and through any of the prior covenants (Abrahamic, Noahic, Mosaic or Davidic) which were not given as means of salvation in and of themselves via an administration of the CoG.

The reason why I have come to hold to 1689 Federalism is I believe it does the best job of highlighting the superiority of the New Covenant above all other covenants while showing the preparatory nature of the prior covenants and their comparatively subservient role to the NC. I believe the “flattening” of the covenants in the 1 Covenant, multiple administrations view leads to some real problems as Baptists on this board and elsewhere have already noted.

This view of course is not a popular one on this board but OP asked about 1689 Federalism and that is my current understanding and reasons for adherence. Brandon Adams is one of the best articulators of the view along with the Renihans.

To conclude on a point of unity, all believe that we are saved by grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

TheInquirer said:

I see Scripture pointing to the cross as the means of salvific grace and Gen. 3:15 as a promise pointing forward to the institution of the CoG/NC and not an actual covenant.

Click to expand...

This seems like an artificial distinction that is being imposed on the text. What provides for the "succession" which arises in Eve's offspring? The biblical narrative in Genesis is formed around the genealogical principle which is founded on 3:15. It is not related as something to come but an active principle that operates as a hermeneutical key to understanding what was going on. Then, why are the elements of this promise constituted as part of the new covenant in places such as Rom. 16:20, Heb. 2:14, and Rev. 12. What provides for this continuity? Why does Hebrews 11 list believers going back to Abel and Enoch, and incorporates them as belonging to the same covenantal family? Without a "covenant" the promise fails to account for many of the practical features that are evident in the progress of revelation.

Matthew,

Perhaps best to discuss in another thread as not to derail the OP's original purpose and question. I would have to ask you some clarification questions as I don't exactly understand your objection at this point and doing so would get things off on a tangent. Feel free to start another thread if you think important.

TheInquirer said:

Perhaps best to discuss in another thread as not to derail the OP's original purpose and question. I would have to ask you some clarification questions as I don't exactly understand your objection at this point and doing so would get things off on a tangent. Feel free to start another thread if you think important.

Click to expand...

No problem.

MW said:

What provides for this continuity? Why does Hebrews 11 list believers going back to Abel and Enoch, and incorporates them as belonging to the same covenantal family? Without a "covenant" the promise fails to account for many of the practical features that are evident in the progress of revelation.

Click to expand...

Thanks, this is really interesting.
[automerge]1750295224[/automerge]

SeanPatrickCornell said:

If we agree that the saints under the Old Testament were saved by virtue of the shed blood of Christ, and if we agree that the fact that Christ's blood had not yet been shed is no barrier, then I don't see how the New Covenant not yet being formally inaugurated is any barrier either.

Click to expand...

Yes I believe we are all saved by Christs shed blood.

I do feel that their is a difference between saying the COG was operative and being delivered to Old Testament saints as opposed to saying it was’nt present but the promise of it coming was present. For sure there was a promise of the Messiah coming. But it seems that they were experiencing salvation, forgiveness of sins etc. they really seemed to be participating in the COG not merely believing that one day a spiritual covenant would be made.

Jim6 said:

But it seems that they were experiencing salvation, forgiveness of sins etc. they really seemed to be participating in the COG not merely believing that one day a spiritual covenant would be made.

Click to expand...

They do participate in the Covenant of Grace. Before Christ the substance of the CoG was present in the form of a promise. After Christ the CoG had a formal reality.

A book I highly recommend is Dr. Samuel Renihan's The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom. This concept is explained far better by Dr. Renihan than by me.

brandonadams said:

To answer your question, David knew that the old covenant offered him no hope.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Does not the fact remain that David was still experiencing spiritual things from this covenant? The law being given served to show him his guilt and that there was nothing he could do to atone for his sin. How was that awareness found? How I see it at present is that that knowledge of the gospel was communicated to him through the old covenant. The Law given to Israel was not intended to be a means of salvation, but rather a guide to reveal sin and lead people to recognize their need for a Savior. Because he understood rightly the old covenant it led him to Christ. All the types and shadows were efficacious to bring him to faith. And faith in Gods promises were what saved him. But those promises were given in the covenants. Or would you say those promises weren’t given in the old covenants?


The Old Testament is understood as administering the covenant of grace through various means, including promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, and the Passover. These were all pointers to the ultimate provision of salvation through Jesus Christ.
[automerge]1750296918[/automerge]

TheInquirer said:

Matthew,

Perhaps best to discuss in another thread as not to derail the OP's original purpose and question. I would have to ask you some clarification questions as I don't exactly understand your objection at this point and doing so would get things off on a tangent. Feel free to start another thread if you think important.

Click to expand...

Feel free to reply to Mathew, it all seems pertinent to the question of if the old covenants were administrations of the COG and Old Testament saint:

I think it is unclear to say that "the new covenant is the covenant of grace." This is creating the confusion and the strawman arguments. When put this way, it makes sense why one would think 1689Fed don't actually believe in a covenant of grace in effect throughout the OT, though we actually do. While I believe the statement is true, there is context to it that provides explanation. Sometimes these simple statements are too simplistic.

A way to state it more clearly is to say that the covenant of grace finds its historical ratification in the new covenant. We need to use the language of Heb 9:16–18 that covenants are "ratified/established/inaugurated" in history. Paedobaptists and credos agree that OT saints are saved by the blood of Christ. Personally, I think 1689Fed ties salvation more explicitly to a historical covenant. Hence, the NC actually provides the efficacy to the theological covenant of grace.

Jim6 said:

Does not the fact remain that David was still experiencing spiritual things from this covenant? The law being given served to show him his guilt and that there was nothing he could do to atone for his sin. How was that awareness found? How I see it at present is that that knowledge of the gospel was communicated to him through the old covenant.

Click to expand...

"experiencing spiritual things from this covenant" is ambiguous. Does regeneration come from the Old Covenant? Is it a promised blessing of the Old Covenant? No. In this way, "spiritual things" do not come from the Old Covenant (ie 2 Cor 3, etc). They come from the New Covenant (Heb 8, etc).

Did the Old Covenant serve a purpose and play a role in bringing about conviction of sin? Yes. Does that mean that the law is of faith (Gal 3:12)? No. Does it mean that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are the same covenant? No. Note: When it is claimed that the Old Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, it is not simply a claim that the Old Covenant played some kind of subservient role in bringing awareness or conviction. It means that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are both the same covenant (the Covenant of Grace), promising the same blessings. Heb 8 is clear that the promises are different and they are different covenants.

Jim6 said:

faith in Gods promises were what saved him. But those promises were given in the covenants. Or would you say those promises weren’t given in the old covenants?

Click to expand...

The New Covenant promises (among other things) 1) regeneration, 2) forgiveness of sins. The Old Covenant did not promise regeneration and the [eternal] forgiveness of sins (Acts 13:38).

Gen 3:15 promised that there would be a seed of the woman to reverse the curse. Gen 3:15 was not a covenant. It was a curse that promised something would happen in history. People could believe that promise and be saved. The Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham promised 1) that Abraham would have numerous offspring who would inherit the land of Canaan, and 2) that one of his offspring would be the promised seed of the woman who would bless the nations by reversing the curse. Again, one could believe that re-iteration of the Gen 3:15 promise and be saved. But note carefully, the promise that Abraham would be the father of the Messiah who would bless the nations (a historia salutis promise) was not a promise that Abraham or his offspring would 1) be born again or 2) have their sins forgiven (ordo salutis promises). Those are unique to the New Covenant. Same with the Old and Davidic covenants. They promise certain covenant blessings that are distinct from the blessings of the New Covenant, yet reveal darkly the gospel (New Covenant).

To put it another way, the New Covenant is union with Christ (from which we receive all his blessings). The other covenants were not union with Christ.

brandonadams said:

The New Covenant promises (among other things) 1) regeneration, 2) forgiveness of sins. The Old Covenant did not promise regeneration and the [eternal] forgiveness of sins (Acts 13:38).

Click to expand...

The new covenant promising regeneration - is this primarily from Jeremiah 31? Specifically the language of “I will write my law on their hearts”?

SeanPatrickCornell said:

They do participate in the Covenant of Grace. Before Christ the substance of the CoG was present in the form of a promise. After Christ the CoG had a formal reality.

Click to expand...

Does this mean it had no formal reality before Christ? This would have the effect of leaving them formally under the covenant of works, which condemned them. In Adam all die. One needs to explain how they were in Christ by whom they received the benefit of salvation.

brandonadams said:

Again, one could believe that re-iteration of the Gen 3:15 promise and be saved.

Click to expand...

How? You have left them without means for personal appropriation. All you have is something to come in the future with no historical link tying the believer in the promise with the event to come. Covenant provides for "succession." You do not have anything of this nature in your explanation. For those who maintain covenantal continuity, a believer offers a sacrifice by faith in Christ to come and the sacrifice of Christ to come is effectual for his salvation. Christ is the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, as the Westminster Confession teaches. Without something historical to tie the believer to the event there is nothing by which they can be personally saved.

brandonadams said:

But note carefully, the promise that Abraham would be the father of the Messiah who would bless the nations (a historia salutis promise) was not a promise that Abraham or his offspring would 1) be born again or 2) have their sins forgiven (ordo salutis promises).

Click to expand...

The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, teaches much more than this. He maintains that there are children of the promise in the plural. He does not confine it to the singular, Christ. Rom. 9:8, "That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." He then goes into the well known passage about election and reprobation. He also teaches that Abraham received a "seal" of salvation. Rom 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also." His overall pattern of teaching is to maintain that believing Gentiles are received into the blessing of the Jews, not that believing Jews and Gentiles have received a whole new reality.

John The Baptist said:

The new covenant promising regeneration - is this primarily from Jeremiah 31? Specifically the language of “I will write my law on their hearts”?

Click to expand...

Yes, as well as the parallels like Ezekiel 36:26; 2 Cor 3:3, etc

MW said:

For those who maintain covenantal continuity, a believer offers a sacrifice by faith in Christ to come and the sacrifice of Christ to come is effectual for his salvation. Christ is the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, as the Westminster Confession teaches. Without something historical to tie the believer to the event there is nothing by which they can be personally saved.

Click to expand...

This is incredibly helpful! Is it proper to say Christ alone is the substance of old covenant religion? The only object of faith in both dispensations of the COG?

John Nyberg said:

This is incredibly helpful! Is it proper to say Christ alone is the substance of old covenant religion? The only object of faith in both dispensations of the COG?

Click to expand...

As the object of faith it is Christ and the promise of salvation by Him. If by "alone" you mean to include the whole complex of salvation, yes. This is Aristotelian terminology, where substance would refer to the essential nature of a thing, and accidents would be changeable circumstances connected with it.

MW said:

Does this mean it had no formal reality before Christ? This would have the effect of leaving them formally under the covenant of works, which condemned them. In Adam all die. One needs to explain how they were in Christ by whom they received the benefit of salvation.

Click to expand...

You're conflating the form of the covenant with the matter of the covenant. Just because the NC / CoG wasn't formalized in time before Christ it doesn't automatically follow that the matter of the NC / CoG was absent.

SeanPatrickCornell said:

You're conflating the form of the covenant with the matter of the covenant. Just because the NC / CoG wasn't formalized in time before Christ it doesn't automatically follow that the matter of the NC / CoG was absent.

Click to expand...

So you have a covenant in absentia, a novel and interesting idea, but has no grounding in Scripture.

Matthew, what you have in existence throughout salvation history is God Himself who is the object of our faith. It sounds like you are putting so much emphasis on historical covenants that they almost seem like they are an indispensible requirement for salvation in your system. “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

MW said:

How? You have left them without means for personal appropriation. All you have is something to come in the future with no historical link tying the believer in the promise with the event to come. Covenant provides for "succession." You do not have anything of this nature in your explanation. For those who maintain covenantal continuity, a believer offers a sacrifice by faith in Christ to come and the sacrifice of Christ to come is effectual for his salvation. Christ is the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, as the Westminster Confession teaches. Without something historical to tie the believer to the event there is nothing by which they can be personally saved.

Click to expand...

What a fascinating paragraph. Westminster federalism interests me in its construction.

There is no "means for personal appropriation" in justification by grace through faith in Christ.

Yet - even immediately after the Fall and expulsion from the Garden - we see evidence of something more than simply "something to come in the future with no historical link tying the believer in the promise with the event to come". Keeping in mind, we do have the Promised Seed of the woman who will crush the serpent's head (Amen!), we also see a sacrificial system established right away by God (Gen. 3:21). Deducing from the fact that God killed to cover the nakedness uncovered by sin coupled with the sacrifices Adam and Eve taught their children, it is unfair to claim that we are unaware or do not account for "means for personal appropriation" in terms of sanctification or evident righteousness for those who have saving faith post-Fall and pre-Sinai in the NC or C of G.

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh." (Heb. 11:4) That more excellent sacrifice comes from a heart who loves God and trusts in God for what is to come. And the sacrifice - excellent as it is - is not Christ and is not once and for all. Saving faith without a "once and for all" atonement but a shadow or type of atonement that points to and is a surety for a more permanent Surety yet to come.

And yes, Christ is the lamb slain (past tense) from the beginning of the world, we affirm with Westminster. Does not John the Baptist declare speaking in inspiration from the Holy Ghost: "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away (present tense) the sin of the world!" (Amen!)

In eternity, Christ is the Lamb slain and even yet is seen as spilling blood / is atoning.

The fact that past tense and present tense is used interchangeably speaks to the transcendence of God above time and cannot logically be used to merge the NC with the OC when there are so many clear distinctions between the two covenants: manner of time, place, mediators (Old having types and New having Christ), means, ends, effects etc.

TheInquirer said:

Matthew, what you have in existence throughout salvation history is God Himself who is the object of our faith. It sounds like you are putting so much emphasis on historical covenants that they almost seem like they are an indispensible requirement for salvation in your system. “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

Click to expand...

Our Confessions agree on the point of divine condescension -- "which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant." That is what the Bible itself presents to us. This is how God's people are blessed in Him. It is important to follow the Bible, not man's imagination. The Bible knows no such thing as an unadministered covenant. Salvation without means is essentially hyper-Calvinism, not biblical Calvinism.

No Other Name said:

Yet - even immediately after the Fall and expulsion from the Garden - we see evidence of something more than simply "something to come in the future with no historical link tying the believer in the promise with the event to come". Keeping in mind, we do have the Promised Seed of the woman who will crush the serpent's head (Amen!), we also see a sacrificial system established right away by God (Gen. 3:21).

Click to expand...

You ALSO see this, over and above the promise. What provides for this? What CONDITIONS does this impose on man? And if you have a PROMISE and a CONDITION, how do you not have a COVENANT? A covenant consists of 2 parties and 2 parts -- a promise and a condition. And what provides for the continuance of this system to the next generation? Where is the genealogical link that binds Noah to Adam, and at the same time distinguishes Seth and Cain? What will actually and historically separate the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent? You have nothing to historically manifest the main focus of the Bible's own progression from PROMISE to FULFILMENT. You only have a futuristic salvation to come with no MEANS for embracing it.

No Other Name said:

And the sacrifice - excellent as it is - is not Christ and is not once and for all. Saving faith without a "once and for all" atonement but a shadow or type of atonement that points to and is a surety for a more permanent Surety yet to come.

Click to expand...

If this were correct it would mean they were believing in a shadow, now a reality. In the view of Westminster the reality was present in the shadow. They believed in the reality and the shadow gave TESTIMONY of their faith. This is what Hebrews 11 actually teaches: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Abel obtained WITNESS that he was righteous.

No Other Name said:

In eternity, Christ is the Lamb slain and even yet is seen as spilling blood / is atoning.

Click to expand...

FROM the beginning, not simply BEFORE. He was covenantally present with His people.

No Other Name said:

The fact that past tense and present tense is used interchangeably speaks to the transcendence of God above time and cannot logically be used to merge the NC with the OC when there are so many clear distinctions between the two covenants: manner of time, place, mediators (Old having types and New having Christ), means, ends, effects etc.

Click to expand...

God is not only transcendent, but IMMANENT. He sets apart physical things that He has created to make them holy signs and seals of His covenant, so that His people may be assured they are believing in actual realities that exist.