-

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

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

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

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

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

Does this passage say anything to this?

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

See the underlined next to the bold.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
The full scope of the NC is world wide. Not just physical heritage.

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

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

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

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

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

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

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

Does this passage say anything to this?

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

See the underlined next to the bold.

Is it effectual in time in the old?

 

[kceaster]

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

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

In Christ,

KC

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Is it effectual in time in the old?

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



[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

In Christ,

KC

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

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

This was a response to Scott.

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

posted by Kevin
What is new about forgiving sins?

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

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

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

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

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

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

Does this passage say anything to this?

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

See the underlined next to the bold.

Is it effectual in time in the old?

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

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

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

 

[Steve Owen]

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

Niell wrote:-

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

To which White replies:-

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

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

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

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

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

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

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

Does this passage say anything to this?

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

See the underlined next to the bold.

Is it effectual in time in the old?

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

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

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

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

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

posted by Kevin
What is new about forgiving sins?

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

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

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

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

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

In Christ,

KC

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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

"Looked forward to....."

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by kceaster

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

posted by Kevin
What is new about forgiving sins?

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

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

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

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

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

In Christ,

KC

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Randy,
I am again having problems tying down what you mean:

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

"Looked forward to....."

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

When did Christ become a propitiation for sin Scott?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Randy,
I am again having problems tying down what you mean:

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

"Looked forward to....."

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

When did Christ become a propitiation for sin Scott?

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Randy,
I am again having problems tying down what you mean:

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

"Looked forward to....."

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

When did Christ become a propitiation for sin Scott?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Randy,
I am again having problems tying down what you mean:

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

"Looked forward to....."

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

When did Christ become a propitiation for sin Scott?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WCF ch 8

VI. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world; being yesterday and today the same, and forever.[36]

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

Question 55 of the Larger cat:

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

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

Question 34

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

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

LBC ch 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

I believe this is where the confusion comes in:

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

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

Do you agree with this statement?



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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

OK. Sounds like we are in agreement.

Wanna arm wrestle now?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I believe this is where the confusion comes in:

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

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

Do you agree with this statement?

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I liken it to this passage.

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
OK. Sounds like we are in agreement.

Wanna arm wrestle now?

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

 

[kceaster]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,

KC

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

 

[just_grace]

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

Renewed with respect to its goal and entrance therein.

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

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by just_grace

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

Renewed with respect to its goal and entrance therein.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Randy,
Okeee dokeee

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by just_grace

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

Renewed with respect to its goal and entrance therein.

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

Yes.