Abrahamic covenant a type?

[steadfast7]

Paedobaptists implore baptists to provide the scriptural instance where God has decreed a change in the way the covenant of grace is administered. I'd like to suggest some points and see how it fares.

1. The Abrahamic is not the first or prime administration of the CoG. The promises and pictures of the CoG have been around since Genesis 3.

2. The Abrahamic is the beginning of a particular promise relating to a particular nation, its land, and its seed. It is the root that gives rise to Israel and all that Israel will come to represent.

3. If Jesus is correct that all of Scripture, the OT, testifies of him, then everything before him is a figure or type. Israel

4. Types are fulfilled when the reality emerges.

In summary, I contend that all revelation prior to Christ is a type or picture. It is temporal in nature. It is meant to be fulfilled and become eternal in nature in him. The change from temporal to eternal is the very significant change in administration that is in view.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

1) The NT treats the Abrahamic covenant as the prime Scriptural referent for God's relating to his people by Promise. This, in distinction from Moses' covenant, which the people under the law tended to treat as prime. And the prime motif of the Garden-age and antedeluvian world is Creation-Fall-Sin-Death-Judgment; we do not say that there is no hope in those chapters, but that such is present in notes, not themes. Hope dawns in Abraham, and so the NT turns our attention there. It is the NT that drives us to Abraham, not convenience.

2) Abraham is the beginning of fulfillment of a promise to the whole world, made in Gen.3:15. This is why God's opening words of promise to Abraham, Gen.12:1-3 culminate in the world-wide blessing, "and in you shall ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH be blessed." The particular-promises that focus on the narrower issues of posterity and place are means-promises. It was a Judaistic mistake to treat the means-promises as ends. The end is universal, world-wide blessing; and a united, forever-people (from every tongue/tribe/people/nation) intended for an eternal city. The earthly referents are inseparable from their heavenly analogues. The heavenly reality is entered into by the patriarchs and their children for almost half a millennium before the earthly type of Promised Land inheritance even begins to take shape. The promises to Abraham are spiritual in nature, but they are accompanied with this-worldly signs and seals.

3) Of course, the OT is shot-through with types and shadows. But the reality isn't merely future; the spiritual reality is present to the people in those types and shadows. The spiritual is above them, not simply ahead of them (temporally). And as the generations depart, they enter into the reality then, even as history waits for Christ's Incarnation.

4) I sense an overrealized eschatology in your statement. We aren't in heaven yet. The fulfillment isn't merely present; we are looking forward to the future with longing, for what the present foretaste of glory portends. The spiritual is ahead of us, not simply above us. And as the generations depart, they enter into the reality, even as history waits for Christ's Second Coming.

You ground (in the most literal sense) OT typology in tangible, earthly stuff. You seem to make that era to be about the stuff, so far as their actual lives went; and only "spiritual" insofar as the stuff of earth is reinterpreted for a more "spiritual" era.

But all those things that the earlier era enjoyed--really and truly in the Spirit--they had "eternal in nature" already. There is an "earthly fulfillment;" it takes place in the Incarnation. It lasts about 33yrs. But the meaning and efficacy of that moment in time is retrojected as well as projected, so that it blankets all time and space, past and future. It HAS eternity and fulfillment IN HIM; it doesn't "become" such when he takes our flesh. He IS the Mediator of the Redeemed from all eternity.

So the Israelite's experience, and all the OT figures', all contains typology, but it points even those who are living it both upward and ahead. They HAVE a Mediator, a Prophet, Priest, and King, in heaven for them, as well as expecting his coming. They had an "already/not yet" in the OT. What Christ does above, is absolutely tied to what he does in time and space here below. What he does here is a kind of sacrament, which work is signified (though not at all "unreal"), but the reality is in the heavenly Temple, wherein he takes his own shed blood and sprinkles the mercy seat.

I think its an error to think that the OT expectation is a "shadow-puppet" variety of typology. That it projects to the OT audience a kind of two-dimensional, monochrome, depthless pantomime of certain things that are bound to happen, someday: "Try to make it out as the actors make their moves behind the sheet. Eventually, the sheet will come down, and you will see the actual events and objects manipulated, etc." This makes the typology essentially about "things that haven't happened yet," instead of about things that are eternally present, and which have vital historic analogues, that may still be future.

The OT saints understand that what is happening on earth mirrors what goes on in heaven even at the same time. There is a cumulative event they know is coming in space and time (future), which is vital to the whole drama of salvation, but that event has ripple effects that affect them in their own time; it affects what happens in heaven right above them. OT Israelites were spiritual people, at their best.


Looked at in this light, one can see (as I do) that our still-earthly experience most definitely relates to the experience of our fathers in faith, from before the cross. They experienced the spiritual reality, in their way, as appropriate for those who waited in history for the gospel word, but also as those who were advanced to the heavenly city at their death, and were "gathered to their people." We experience the spiritual reality, in our way, as appropriate for those who are informed concerning the gospel's history, and as those who are advanced to the heavenly city at death, to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

They lived an "already/not yet" that was weighted toward the "not yet." We live an "already/not yet" that is weighted toward the "already," at least as far as the objective and decisive historic moment of Christ's Ascension marked the completion of his earthly work. But we still have a period of waiting, we aren't in heaven yet, and we continue to "typify" the heavenly realities in our worship. We "administer" the New Covenant realities while the earth remains, and the church pilgrims. And we have an important event to look forward to; and so all this also creates a strong parallel to the ancient's future expectation. We even call that future event, "the blessed hope."

 

[steadfast7]

Thanks for the response Rev. Bruce!
what I sense in your scheme, and perhaps rightly so I'm not sure, is a much more "flat" or "level" view of how God's revelation interacts with man through the ages, whereas Baptists view the progression as an incline moving towards a summit that terminates at the cross. One of these days, I'll try to sketch it out graphically, but for now it seems this form of covenant theology has saints on both sides of the cross having little to no difference except for a shift in weight: pre-incarnation saints as heavier on the "not yet" and post-incarnation saints as heavier on the "already."

Couple of thoughts.

1. Although we are not in heaven yet, it is not "over-realized" eschatology to say that we ARE seated with Christ in heavenly places, united with him by faith. This cannot be said of the saints in the OT dispensation, can it? Hebrews makes it clear that they had NOT received the promises they waited for in faith. Hebrews also makes the important distinction: In the past, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets in many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us in his son. This sharp difference in what the patriarchs had in Christ and what we have is blended a bit too much in Reformed covenant theology. This is not to say that they did not enjoy spiritual realities and were not drinking of Christ, but their partaking of him was through the shadow, not the reality - and that makes a big difference! We get to partake of him, "in the flesh", as it were.

2. The Abrahamic covenant has to be seen as temporal, because there will come a time when families will no longer be perpetuated. The spawning of nations has ended, and eventually, there will a cessation of natural progeny. The Abrahamic covenant pictured in circumcision must end because the birth of infants will eventually end in the New Jerusalem. It is only eternal in so much as it terminates with Christ. Same goes with the Davidic covenant that promises an eternal monarchy for David. This is only possible because it terminates with Christ. I see that as a clear parallel.

We are not living in a time when the nations of earth are expanding and progeny being multiplied until a promised Seed is revealed, which is partially what I see in view in the act of circumcision. We are living in the days when the blessing has arrived and is being spread to all nations through the gospel. It is the reaping of the harvest, the in-gathering of the nations to the New Jerusalem. I can't help but view the Abrahamic covenant as future-looking - an anticipation of a blessing to come, and terminates when the seed arrives.

I wonder if Reformed Baptists view the the conversion and status of OT saints as IDENTICAL with ours in Christ? if I can be convinced of that the "flattened" model that RCT proposes will be more plausible.

blessings!

 

[py3ak]

Bruce, would it be a fair summary of some of what you said above to say that the forward-pointing types were also upward-pointing symbols?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Ruben,
I think that's fair. Here's the WCF, from ch.8, of Christ the Mediator

8:6 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 to-day the same, and for ever.

Dennis,
I think that's fair. I think you'll have to raise the "plateau" for the the situation of the current crop of saints in the days of the New Covenant (as you see them); and figure out how their final state constitutes an "advancement" relative to your diagram.

In the "word-picture" I tried to paint, the Incarnation is the elevated focal point that rises spectacularly from a basically linear scale, and not particularly inclined; to one side the OT saints, to the other side NT saints. Above that linear-progression diagram, distinct and boundless, is the eternal realm. Below it, relative to the OT saints, post-fall the scheme is rendered in subdued tones and dark shadows. Relative to the NT saints, the scheme is bright, and shading is minimal but realistic. At either end of the spectrum, there is an appropriate elevated representation of "ordinary" human conditions. Pre-fall, man sits at a height from which he may/shall collapse (or we might also say should have advanced after his probation). On the other end, in the resurrection man will rise higher to attain in his body what he presently enjoys in the spirit through fellowship with God by means of the Mediator.

As to your comments,
1) I understand the eschatology to which you refer (e.g. Eph.2:6) to be a spiritual reality, but its one that we can only enter into by faith because we aren't there yet. Not being *there* means that we are *here*; and being here necessitates (so I say) certain earthly realities that admit of a worldly (and imperfect) administration of the NC. What we do in worship "takes us to heaven," where Christ is (cf. Heb.12:22ff). It's a foretaste of the better reality still to be enjoyed in fullness.

And it is exactly here that I deny what you imply when you ask rhetorically, "This cannot be said of the saints in the OT dispensation, can it?" Yes, it can and ought to be said; because they also worshiped God at a cosmic-intersection of heaven and earth. This is the import of Is.6. This is the import of God's condescension to dwell "in the midst of his people," in his Tabernacle (and then Temple). In one sense, there is a kind of "reversal" to the direction-of-travel in this encounter. In OT terms, God typically descends to be with man; in NT terms, man is typically raised to be with God. But this is more a reflection of the conditions and the lessons, than a spatial description. "Cosmic intersection" dispenses with such direction. Heaven meets earth.

In order for the OT saints to appreciate their religion, they had to "ascend the hill of the Lord," Ps.24:3 (see, spatially we cannot compartmentalize the metaphors OT and NT). They had to enter the heavenly courts by faith, not just settle for the beautiful pavements of Solomon and Herod. What the OT saints lacked was a full disclosure of their benefits, prior to the Incarnation. They did NOT HAVE the revelation of the Gospel, except through the promises; but in the promises they had the substance by faith. That is the essence of Heb.11! They didn't get these things while they were in the world. But when they died, they attained to the heavenly city, Heb.11:10.

We do get Christ in more clarity than they did while they were on earth. We once HAD him "in the flesh," in the sense that he was with us for 33 years. Now we "have him" by faith just like the fathers did; but in the gospel, in clarity and light, with a grand historic salvation-event behind us, rather than before us (because Christ's exodus was greater than the Exodus type). Now we have him by faith in the Supper, which is a better meal than the Passover--but not because it revealed a different salvation. Look, when Moses and Elijah come and meet with Christ on the Mt. of Transfiguration, they aren't coming from someplace other than the heavenly city. They are sent as agents of strengthening our Lord, as those who know better than Peter, James, and John, what must soon take place.


2) To your last point (as we've gone back-and-forth over it any number of times): your prior commitment to the idea of a particular covenant with Abraham that is in essence radically earthly, radically temporal, and not in essence spiritual and accompanied with earthly/temporal administrative necessities--this is at base a hermeneutical matter. It is just a different way of reading Scripture. If you start in a different place, you will end up with a different look.

Circumcision, as far as I'm concerned, was primarily a mark of religious affiliation, it was a mark of discipleship. It wasn't primarily an "ethnic boundary marker," although it ends up functioning that way more or less by default. You seem to see it exclusively as a progeny-sign. So I've heard Rom.4:11 explained, that it was not a sign-to-faith in general; what Abraham does with that sign "by faith" is his own business, on that view. Obviously, if I take Rom.4:11 as the divine intention for the sign from the beginning, and ideally to all who received it, then I'm going to say that Abraham had that understanding, and he taught that to the church in his day.

So, the issue that you frame as having to do with population (with little or no reference to faith) I take as having everything to do with faith and discipleship, and only incidentally/secondarily to do with population. And the same principle would hold for New Covenant signs.

 

[steadfast7]

I guess I still can't get my head around the idea that conversion in both epochs is identical. The symmetrical covenantal scheme makes it look like Christ looms over the entire span of humanity in both testaments and we only "had him" for 33 years in the incarnation. Doesn't the distinction between the application of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer play in somewhere here? In the OT, the Spirit "rushed" upon various individuals, but now he indwells us personally. It's true that the OT saints beheld Christ by faith in the same way as we do, but when John writes "we beheld his glory, the glory of the one and only begotten of the Father" he writes that as a member of a totally new order of saints who take hold of the promises in a much deeper fuller reality. I'm not convinced that that age lasted 33 years and is past with the ascension. Even those who lived and saw Jesus of Nazereth in the flesh needed faith to truly behold him.

---------- Post added at 07:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 AM ----------

Also, in our union with Christ, we have already stepped into "eternal life." As John writes, "and this is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Those who enter into faith in the revealed Messiah are of another kind than those who saw only types and shadows.

I think in this discussion though, I have placed my finger on straw that breaks the camel's back for me in terms of the paedo and credo distinction. Thanks for the discussion!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Regarding the Spirit's work:
--Jesus speaks to Nicodemus like he should already realize (as the OT teacher of Israel) that the H.S. is the agent of new birth, Jn.3:10.
--The Spirit regenerates; he's always regenerated the saved.
--The Spirit is not poured out on all flesh in the OT. The people in general do not possess him in powerful indwelling.
--Hence, his work in general for the elect is minimal for effective salvation; but he is present, and indispensable.
--The Spirit is given in power to particular individuals, to equip them for various roles, usually mediatorial (prophet, priest,king).
--In this vein, David pleads with the Lord not to take his Holy Spirit from him, Ps.51:11.

Your take on John's language, "We beheld his glory..." seems to be a claim that even you and I "behold" the glory of Christ the way the disciples did. Is this your claim? John can say, as an apostle and follower of Jesus in the days of his flesh, that he and those alive with him beheld Jesus' glory. He's not saying this "as a member of a totally new order of saints...".

And as a further demonstration of that point, I just point you to Jn.12:41, "These things Isaiah said when he saw his glory, and spoke of him." See, Isaiah saw this same Person's glory that John saw. He had a disturbingly real, "pre-Incarnate" encounter with Christ.

We behold the glory of Christ, too, as it is mediated to us through the record of the Apostles', and yes, even Isaiah's encounter, with the Son of God. Together, they give us a better sight of this Christ's glory that people who lived in the OT generally had, while they lived on earth. But the OT saints were still looking unto the same divine, glorious Person, even when he was obscured.

The reason there were those who saw Jesus in the flesh and didn't believe in him, didn't behold him aright, was that they lacked faith, NOT because he was not glorious. In fact, as the gospel-accounts demonstrate, the disciples are people who go from viewing Christ as one of them, as the BEST of men, to viewing him as being unutterably different from them, as God Incarnate, as Emmanuel. They come to see him for who he really is. The scales fall from their eyes.

If you think that faith in the revealed Messiah makes another "kind of person" than Isaiah was--and all the OT saints with him--well, I just can't wrap my head around that view of biblical religion.

 

[Unoriginalname]

I am really enjoying this discourse and I hope it continues.

 

[MW]

Those who enter into faith in the revealed Messiah are of another kind than those who saw only types and shadows.

Your "higher Christian life" is too high for the apostle Paul, who looked to Abraham and David in order to describe the nature of justifying faith in Jesus, Romans 4:1-9.

 

[Rom]

I guess I still can't get my head around the idea that conversion in both epochs is identical.

I think Rev. Bruce has done a fantastic job in explaining this (and no doubt can do a much better job than I could ever dream of) - but I just wanted to focus on this particular aspect for a moment:

If we hold to man being totally depraved, and unable to exercise saving faith ("the righteous shall live by faith") without the work of the Holy Spirit, then obviously conversion in both eras is the same - through the Holy Spirit. If conversion was done through some other agent, then one of two things is possible:

1. The nature of man was different in the Old Covenant, and so could save himself.
2. God used some other agent to regenerate man in the Old Covenant.

Either option would be unbiblical.

 

[steadfast7]

We behold the glory of Christ, too, as it is mediated to us through the record of the Apostles', and yes, even Isaiah's encounter, with the Son of God. Together, they give us a better sight of this Christ's glory that people who lived in the OT generally had, while they lived on earth. But the OT saints were still looking unto the same divine, glorious Person, even when he was obscured.

Let's talk about the way in which OT and NT saints relate to the godhead...
No one can deny the glory that Moses, Isaiah and others witnessed with their own eyes. But were Moses and Isaiah united with the Christ that they knew in types and figures? Were they seated with Christ in heavenly places during the time of their ministry? Were they indwelt by the Spirit?

I remain unconvinced that they had this privilege, though after the incarnation and atonement Christ made, that may now be applied to them in some retroactive fashion as they dwell with him in heaven. They looked forward to an atonement to be accomplished; we look back at an atonement already accomplished. We merely wait for the final wrapping up of the kingdom of God when all God's enemies will be under his feet in all realms.

For me, viewing this from within the perspective of union with Christ is most helpful. It seems to me that Christ would first have to undergo the temporal events of his earthly ministry (life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension) before union can be possible. This is not to say that divine encounters with the Son of God did not happen in OT, but they were always mediated through a type.

Your take on John's language, "We beheld his glory..." seems to be a claim that even you and I "behold" the glory of Christ the way the disciples did. Is this your claim? John can say, as an apostle and follower of Jesus in the days of his flesh, that he and those alive with him beheld Jesus' glory. He's not saying this "as a member of a totally new order of saints...".

Interestingly, John also mentions how it worked out for Thomas, how Jesus asked him, "have you believed because you have seen? Blessed are those who believe, yet do not see." I read that as saying that seeing Christ in the flesh is not all there is to beholding him and believing with faith. You are right that having faith (graciously dispensed) is key in all of this.

Your "higher Christian life" is too high for the apostle Paul, who looked to Abraham and David in order to describe the nature of justifying faith in Jesus, Romans 4:1-9.

Without a doubt, the OT saints provide the best examples of both the theological and practical outworkings of Paul's theology. But, the objects of their belief makes all the difference in the world. Abraham believed God's words about being the father of many nations, which for him was salvation at that juncture in salvation history. We are to mimic Abraham in his faith, not in the precise object in which he believed. Thus, he serves as an example, a type of justifying faith.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Partial Response to Antinomista by Evangelista
Concerning the Salvation of the Israelites

And sir, do you think that these Israelites at this time did see Christ and salvation by him in these types and shadows?

Yes,….And therefore says Calvin, ‘the sacrifices and satisfactory offerings were called Ashemoth, which word properly signifies sin itself, to show that Jesus Christ was to come and perform a perfect expiation, by giving his own soul to be an asham, that is, a satisfactory oblation.(Institut. P. 239.)

Wherefore, you may assure yourself, that as Christ was always set before the fathers in the Old Testament, to whom they might direct their faith, and as God never put them in hope of any grace or mercy, nor ever showed himself good unto them without Christ: even so the godly in the Old Testament knew Christ by whom they did enjoy these promises of God, and were joined to him. [To Christ, by faith.] And, indeed, the promise of salvation never stood firm till it came to Christ. And there was their comfort in all their troubles and distresses, according as it is said of Moses, ‘He endured as seeing him who is invisible, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he had respect to the recompense of reward’ (Hebrews 11:26-7).

And so says Calvin, ‘So oft as the prophets speak of the blessedness of that faithful, the perfect image that they have painted thereof was such as might ravish men’s minds out of the earth, and of necessity raise them up to the consideration of the felicity of the life to come (Insitut. P.207); so that they may assuredly conclude, with Luther, that all the fathers, prophets, and holy kings, were righteous, and saved by faith in Christ to come; and so indeed, as Calvin says, ‘were partakers of all one salvation with us’ (Institut. P. 198).

Edward Fisher
Marrow of Modern Divinity

pp. 91,92

Let's talk about the way in which OT and NT saints relate to the godhead...
No one can deny the glory that Moses, Isaiah and others witnessed with their own eyes. But were Moses and Isaiah united with the Christ that they knew in types and figures? Were they seated with Christ in heavenly places during the time of their ministry? Were they indwelt by the Spirit?

I remain unconvinced that they had this privilege,...

As a Reformed Baptist I never held to anything like your position. Union in Christ is the same in both testaments as is regeneration. In fact Jesus chided Nicodemus for not understanding this, as he was a teacher of the law. Christ was also the center piece of the Old Testament as much as He is in the New. And the Old Testament Saints did know Him in a particular way. Even deeper than just shadows. They believed without seeing him as we do for the most part. But some got to see Him.

(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
(Luk 24:44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

(Joh 1:45) Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

(Joh 5:45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Isaiah saw him also and where esle are you going to get such a wonderful picture of the Person and Work of Christ in the Old Testament. He fully understood and His faith was in the Person and Work of Christ. The Lamb of God that was slain from the foundation of the World. Hebrews 4:3 and Revelation 13:8
(Joh 12:41) These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

(Joh 8:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
(Joh 8:57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
(Joh 8:58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


(Act 28:23) And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

For me, viewing this from within the perspective of union with Christ is most helpful. It seems to me that Christ would first have to undergo the temporal events of his earthly ministry (life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension) before union can be possible. This is not to say that divine encounters with the Son of God did not happen in OT, but they were always mediated through a type.

You have no idea what Union in Christ is. You have a very superficial understanding of it. What is true in Ephesians Chapters One and Two is true for everyone whom God has chosen before the foundation of the world. The just shall be saved by grace through faith. And in fact it is that wall of partition that Christ tore down that makes us also accepted in Him. Ephesians 2:12 and 19 speak of this. We are no longer strangers to the Covenant. Christ is portrayed in the OT. He was even seen and spoken of. Job understood rightly about God and Saviour. And that is from one of the oldest books of the Bible.

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

Jacob wrestled with him.

(Gen 32:24) And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
(Gen 32:25) And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
(Gen 32:26) And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
(Gen 32:27) And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
(Gen 32:28) And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
(Gen 32:29) And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
(Gen 32:30) And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Joshua saw him as the Captain of Israel.

(Jos 5:13) And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
(Jos 5:14) And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
(Jos 5:15) And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

Abraham met him and spoke with him along with two other angels in Genesis 18.

Isaiah saw him also.
(Joh 12:41) These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

David understood as he proclaimed the Lord said unto My Lord.
(Psa 110:1) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
(Psa 110:2) The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
(Psa 110:3) Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
(Psa 110:4) The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

(Mat 22:41) While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
(Mat 22:42) Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
(Mat 22:43) He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
(Mat 22:44) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
(Mat 22:45) If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
(Mat 22:46) And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

I believe their is ample evidence that the OT Saints knew whom they were to believe upon and who he would be. Let me just remind you about what Jesus said to Nicodemus real quick.

(Joh 3:1) There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
(Joh 3:2) The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
(Joh 3:3) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(Joh 3:4) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
(Joh 3:5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(Joh 3:6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
(Joh 3:7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
(Joh 3:8) The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
(Joh 3:9) Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
(Joh 3:10) Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
(Joh 3:11) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
(Joh 3:12) If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
(Joh 3:13) And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Regeneration is important and the same in both Testaments. If so no man could have been saved or born anew back then. They wouldn't have known the gift of God nor would they have been slightly concerned about the things of God as St. Paul noted....

(1Co 2:12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
(1Co 2:13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Co 2:15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

I can't say that I have heard a Reformed Baptist speak as you are speaking Dennis. And I have been around them for a very long time. You sound more like a dispensationalist to me with some form of strange dispensational understanding of regeneration and Union with Christ.

 

[steadfast7]

Randy, thanks for finally chiming in!
Yeah, I understand the dispensational-ness of my posts. But then, as C. Matthew McMahon cites in his treatise about how he moved from Baptist to Presbyterian, he noticed how he could never shake the dispensationalness from his baptistic theology, no matter how Reformed he was in his soteriology. I do see more and more how covenant theology is a self contained system. I'd really like to know from you, Randy, how you manage to remain Baptistic while fully covenantal in the Reformed sense. Is it a matter of the RPW?

anyway, all labels aside, I really am wanting to be as faithful as possible to scripture.

In regard to your citations of Old Testament epiphanies of Christ, I fully agree and glory in those encounters that those saints experienced. But are they not just that: epiphanies. Where in those citations do we have those saints experiencing the fullness of Christ in his work on the cross, and being seated with him in the heavenlies, indwelt by his Spirit eternally? Those references are of the saints having AN experience with Christ, or having A knowledge of him. Jesus chided those who ought to have a knowledge of the meaning of the death and resurrection of the Messiah because all the Old Testament did point to him in allusions, types, and figures. But drawing a conclusion from scripture ABOUT Christ and being united with him by faith are two different things.

What is your take on this passage at the end of Hebrews:

39And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

What does it mean that we received something "better" here? What does it mean that the OT saints should not be "made perfect" apart from us? Are we only talking about Gentile inclusion here? If OT salvation was already perfect and union with Christ effect in the same way, on what basis does Hebrews say that our situation is much better?

 

[Pilgrim]

Randy, thanks for finally chiming in! Yeah, I understand the dispensational-ness of my posts. But then, as C. Matthew McMahon cites in his treatise about how he moved from Baptist to Presbyterian, he noticed how he could never shake the dispensationalness from his baptistic theology, no matter how Reformed he was in his soteriology. I do see more and more how covenant theology is a self contained system. I'd really like to know from you, Randy, how you manage to remain Baptistic while fully covenantal in the Reformed sense. Is it a matter of the RPW? anyway, all labels aside, I really am wanting to be as faithful as possible to scripture.In regard to your citations of Old Testament epiphanies of Christ, I fully agree and glory in those encounters that those saints experienced. But are they not just that: epiphanies. Where in those citations do we have those saints experiencing the fullness of Christ in his work on the cross, and being seated with him in the heavenlies, indwelt by his Spirit eternally? Those references are of the saints having AN experience with Christ, or having A knowledge of him. Jesus chided those who ought to have a knowledge of the meaning of the death and resurrection of the Messiah because all the Old Testament did point to him in allusions, types, and figures. But drawing a conclusion from scripture ABOUT Christ and being united with him by faith are two different things.What is your take on this passage at the end of Hebrews:

39And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

What does it mean that we received something "better" here? What does it mean that the OT saints should not be "made perfect" apart from us? Are we only talking about Gentile inclusion here? If OT salvation was already perfect and union with Christ effect in the same way, on what basis does Hebrews say that our situation is much better?

With regard to the last part of your post, I'd say that there has been a move from types and shadows into fullness, including the Spirit being poured out. We have a better High Priest, an everlasting New Covenant in contrast to the temporary Mosaic Covenant with its types and shadows, etc. (When the "Old Covenant" is referred to, it's a reference to the Mosaic.)

Of course, there's a lot more to be said here. Admittedly it is not a simple issue. I certainly don't have it all figured out or nailed down at this point. However, my current position, even in my weaker moments, is that at the very least the implications of the alternatives (dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology) drive me toward a covenantal view. As Bruce has noted, there was still enough in the old dispensation to point to Christ, as we see with Simeon, Anna, and Christ's question to Nicodemus, among other passages that could be cited.

While he hasn't made a big deal of it on the board, Randy (puritancovenanter) is now a paedobaptist, as he alludes to in his post with his statement "As a Reformed Baptist I never held to anything like your position." There probably aren't enough Baptists here anymore to have an old time PB baptism debate that goes 100+ posts anyway.

Your suggestion about the salvation of OT saints sounds quite compatible with Ryrie's statement that the basis of salvation is Christ but that the content of faith differs from dispensation to dispensation. I'm guessing that's what you mean by the "dispensational-ness" of your posts.

But I think your posts here and in the past are more akin to New Covenant Theology (NCT). NCT is not compatible with traditional Reformed Baptist covenant theology but it's not fair to call it dispensational either. The most pithy phrase to describe RB covenant theology is "one covenant of grace, two administrations." This administration (or dispensation, to use older language) is chiefly different than the paedobaptists with regard to covenant signs and whether or not it is proper to view the children of church members as being within the visible church in a formal sense. Right or wrong, we Baptists take NT passages regarding ecclesiology such as the ones in Acts as being more normative than simply descriptive, in contrast to our paedobaptist brethren. Also, despite the arguments I've seen for it, I still don't see how you can avoid adopting paedocommunion if you adopt paedobaptism. That perceived inconsistency was one of the main reasons for my switch. But maybe I'm just too much of a "Biblicist" here.

New Covenant Theology has some "dispensational-ness" with regard to positing a greater discontinuity between the old and new dispensations or administrations. For various reasons, while they don't posit two or more ways of salvation the way classic dispensationalists did, they deny that there is one covenant of grace. In a practical sense, in most cases this mainly impacts the perpetuity of the moral law. This not only impacts one's view of the 4th Commandment but also one's view of the use of the law in sanctification. We're seeing this more and more with "Gospel-centered" sanctification, which is not limited to NCT circles as seen with the recent posts on that issue.

No dispensationalist would ever say that the Abrahamic Covenant is abrogated entirely. It seems to me that no premil of any type (including a covenant premil such as myself) can say that the Abrahamic Covenant is entirely abrogated (or "fulfilled") without undercutting the very foundation of their position. That's why NCTers are overwhelmingly amil. They tend to subsume the Abrahamic into the Mosaic and view both as the "Old Covenant." (I know you haven't stated that you're premil, but I'm pointing out another implication for the NCT position.)

As for Matthew McMahon's plight as a RB not being able to escape dispensationalism, I cannot say that I quite identify with it, although no doubt many others have had that experience. I think that was a big part of Bill Brown (Herald) considering himself a "Baptist in Crisis" for a few years while he worked this out.

Not long after my conversion, I spent a few years being involved in a baptistic ministry that held to a form of New Covenant Theology. (I wasn't raised in an evangelical church at all, much less a dispensational one.) After seeing what I saw as some serious problems there that weren't really related to NCT, I eventually went into paedobaptism without having much of an intermediate 1689er phase. I've been working that out after coming to baptistic convictions over 3 years ago.

I have studied dispensationalism much more than previously over the past 2 years as we were attending an independent Bible church, which was the best church I knew of in the area at that time that actually had any presence in the community. By that point I decided I needed to study it from primary sources, as I had never done that. While I now have a much better appreciation and understanding of why they believe what they believe, I can't say that I ever became a convinced Dispensational, particularly with regard to pretribulationalism. In fact, it was precisely the issues that have been raised in this thread, along with the particulars of that eschatology, that convinced me that we could not remain in that church. One who is in any kind of teaching role has to agree to teach in accordance with their statement of faith, which is basic Dallas dispensationalism. This was despite the pastor becoming much more Calvinistic than he had previously and hardly ever discussing dispensationalism or eschatology.

There were Baptists long before there were dispensationalists, and dispensationalism arose in non-baptistic circles. My understanding is that Darby remained a paedobaptist. It was actually popularized in the USA by paedobaptists like Brookes, Scofield and Chafer. (Perhaps in part because many of the early Dispensationalists didn't view the New Covenant as having been inaugurated at all, evidently many of them therefore saw no need to jettison infant baptism and didn't think baptism=immersion regardless. I think Chafer was influenced by J.W. Dale in that regard.) Unfortunately however, by the early 20th Century, many Baptists adopted dispensationalism as the fundamentalist-modernist controversy heated up and when postmillennialism was viewed as having been discredited. Later, unfortunately, it became basically an article of faith in many circles.

While Baptists view circumcision as being more of a national boundary marker than Reformed paedobaptists do, this does not necessitate seeing the Abrahamic Covenant as a whole as being abrogated. If it does, then there have been a lot of confused covenantal Baptists for 400 years. And there are some who are not fully covenantal, as with Jeffrey Johnson's Fatal Flaw, who do not see the Abrahamic Covenant as being wholly abrogated.

All of the covenants are administrations of the covenant of grace, as the LBCF notes ("By farther steps.") But the Mosaic was temporary as we have noted here, albeit the moral law as embodied in the 10 Commandments remains applicable at all times.

Everybody agrees that the Abrahamic has been transformed. The question is the degree to which circumcision was a national or spiritual sign and whether or not children of church members should be considered "covenant children" today. I don't see that as being directly related to the question of the Spirit's indwelling.

Incidentally, some might view some of Bruce's posts regarding the indwelling of the Spirit as being somewhat non-covenantal! (I recently searched the PB archives on this issue, as I'm interested to know what covenant theologians have viewed Pentecost and the indwelling of the Spirit.) In my experience these would tend to be those who identify with New Covenant Theology whose understanding of Covenant Theology is at best superficial. I'd be interested to know whether any of the Covenant Theologians here would see it that way.

 

[a mere housewife]

Dennis, I don't want to detract with my small ability to understand -- but how do you account for the Psalms if the OT saints had no union with Christ, his work on the cross, the fullness of the Spirit? How could Christ identify with the Psalmist on the very cross and use the words of an OT saint to express the most incomprehensible moment of His atonement experience? How could he use the words of the Psalms in so many other settings? Could they have written words that He took up as expressions of His deepest inner experience if they were merely standing on the outside of union with Him? How does your view of their not possessing spiritual realities but only temporal things account for Psalm 73?

I think your very citation of the OT saints not receiving what they hoped is key for understanding that they did in fact possess spiritual realities in that dispensation of temporal shadows. For part of their not receiving what they hoped for was that the very temporal blessings they were promised were withheld from them: the fathers dwelt as strangers and pilgrims in the land of promise (and the Psalmist generations later can cry that he too is a stanger and pilgrim 'like all his fathers') So ' . . . they did not acquire a footbreadth in the land of Canaan, except for sepulture . . ' '. . . let us learn that the holy fathers under the Old Testament were not ignorant that in this world God seldom or never gives his servants the fulfillment of what is promised them, and therefore has directed their minds to his sanctuary, where the blessings not exhibited in the present shadowy life are treasured up for them.' ' . . . the Lord is the final reward promised to Abraham . . . a promise of the land is afterward added for no other reason than that it might be a symbol of the divine benevolence, and a type of the heavenly inheritance, as the saints declare their understanding to have been. Thus David rises from temporal blessings to the last and highest of all, My flesh and my heart faileth, but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever. Again, The Lord is the portion of my inheritance . . .' (Calvin)

How can any flesh be in union with God such that He is the strength of the heart, apart from vital union with our Mediator, and the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ?

I love this beautiful statement from a sermon by G. Vos:

'We have already seen that even in the promised land the patriarchs remained tent-dwellers. God had a wise purpose in thus postponing for them personally the fulfilment of the temporal promise. Although Canaan was a goodly land, it yet, after all, material and not of that higher substance we call spiritual. While capable of carrying the mind to supernal regions, it also exposed to the danger of becoming satisfied with the blessing in its provisional form. That this danger was not imaginary the later history of Israel testifies. In order to guard against such a result in the case of the patriarchs God withheld from them the land and its riches and made of this denial a powerful spiritualizing discipline. By it they were led to reflect that, since the promise was theirs beyond all doubt, and yet they were not allowed to inherit it in its material form, that therefore it must in the last analysis relate to something far higher and different, something of which the visible and sensual is a mere image. Thus the conception of another sphere of being was introduced into their minds: henceforth they sought the better country. Not as if the thing of sense were worthless in themselves, but because they knew of something transcendent that claimed their supreme affection. Their tastes and enjoyments had been raised to another plane. . . They had come to a mountain that could not be touched and yet could be felt. In all the treasures and promises of religion the one valuable thing is this spiritual core. In the word that God speaks we can taste all his goodness and grace. Hope itself is spiritualized, remaining no longer the hope of imagination but grasping in God the ideal root from which the whole future must spring and blossom in due time. The heavenly world does not appear desirable as simply a second improved edition of this life; that would be nothing else than earthly-mindedness projected into the future. The very opposite takes place: heaven spiritualizes in advance our present walk with God.'

Incidentally, this whole discussion just makes me want to say Alleluia. What I have not been given of promised things here and now is also part of my here and now entering into the possession of the heavenly inheritance -- of even here and now being given, as my Father Abraham, the Lord God Himself.

 

[MW]

Your "higher Christian life" is too high for the apostle Paul, who looked to Abraham and David in order to describe the nature of justifying faith in Jesus, Romans 4:1-9.

Without a doubt, the OT saints provide the best examples of both the theological and practical outworkings of Paul's theology. But, the objects of their belief makes all the difference in the world. Abraham believed God's words about being the father of many nations, which for him was salvation at that juncture in salvation history. We are to mimic Abraham in his faith, not in the precise object in which he believed. Thus, he serves as an example, a type of justifying faith.

Are you saying that the object of Abraham's justifying faith was different to the object of a believer under the New Testament? That would require you to believe that Abraham was justified by a righteousness other than Jesus Christ's. This is nothing more nor less than another way of salvation. Is that what you are intending to teach? that the Old Testament saints were saved by some other way than by Jesus Christ? What do you make of John 8:56? "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This is nothing more nor less than another way of salvation. Is that what you are intending to teach? that the Old Testament saints were saved by some other way than by Jesus Christ?

This is what I've heard loud and clear throughout Dennis' posts. He argues too much in driving a wedge between the NT and OT Saints.

Here is what the LBCF confesses:

CHAPTER 7; OF GOD’S COVENANT

Paragraph 1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to Him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.1
1 Luke 17:10; Job 35:7,8

Paragraph 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace,2 wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;3 and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.4
2 Gen. 2:17; Gal. 3:10; Rom. 3:20,21
3 Rom. 8:3; Mark 16:15,16; John 3:16;
4 Ezek. 36:26,27; John 6:44,45; Ps. 110:3

Paragraph 3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman,5 and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament;6 and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect;7 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.8
5 Gen. 3:15
6 Heb. 1:1
7 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2
8 Heb. 11;6,13; Rom. 4:1,2, &c.; Acts 4:12; John 8:56

You are completely out of bounds here Dennis.

 

[Peairtach]

2. The Abrahamic is the beginning of a particular promise relating to a particular nation, its land, and its seed. It is the root that gives rise to Israel and all that Israel will come to represent.

Israel continues in the New Covenant Church. Most of the Jews (natural branches) have been cut out (temporarily?) from the Abrahamic Covenantal Olive Tree (Rom 9). The New Covenant Church is called "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16) and the Commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12)

This particular nation is in the process of expanding to encompass all nations, so how is it merely a type that is done away with?

We are Israel and Christ is the King of Israel.

 

[steadfast7]

I certainly see the error and danger of hinting towards (although not personally having) the view that the content of faith has changed. It has not, in any way. Making too much of a break between old and new testament saints is not only non-covenantal, it divides the gospel - something I don't ever want to do. A phrase has come to mind that is swinging me nicely back over to a solidly covenantal position: Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

I've obviously been putting too much emphasis on the temporal events of Christ's earthly ministry, not realizing that in God's view, the atonement is settled at the covenant of redemption. If Hebrews speaks of us being in a privileged position, it is only because we see the full tree, whereas the OT saints only saw the sapling.

Being someone who confesses the LCBF, but having never been brought up in any confessionally Reformed church or have met anyone in person who is RB for that matter, I thank you guys for helping sharpen me in this area. Thanks Chris for your helpful post.

Randy, if you're still out there, please share about what it was that moved you over to Presbyterianism? I think it'd be really helpful for many.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

In regard to your citations of Old Testament epiphanies of Christ, I fully agree and glory in those encounters that those saints experienced. But are they not just that: epiphanies. Where in those citations do we have those saints experiencing the fullness of Christ in his work on the cross, and being seated with him in the heavenlies, indwelt by his Spirit

Dennis, Those appearances of Christ were still very significant. Jacob wrestled with the Lord. Abraham fixed a meal for the Lord and two angels. The Lord killed and slayed an animal to cover Adam and Eve after the fall. The Church then had a yearly sacrifice proclaiming and pointing to the work the Lord was going to do. The Spirit played an important role in the Old Covenant theology. Men of God knew the importance of that role.

(Gen 41:38) And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?


(Exo 28:3) You shall speak to all the skillful, whom I have filled with a spirit of skill, that they make Aaron's garments to consecrate him for my priesthood.


(Exo 31:3) And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,


(Exo 35:31) And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship;


(Num 11:17) And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.


(Num 27:18) And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;

(Deu 34:9) And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.
(Deu 34:10) And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

(2Sa 23:1) Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
(2Sa 23:2) The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.
(2Sa 23:3) The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
(2Sa 23:4) And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.
(2Sa 23:5) Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.

Sure there were earthly promises set for Abraham and the Church. There are promises and punishment promised on this side of Christ's crucifixion for obedience and disobedience just like there was for Israel. The Old Testament Church was what a lot of people refer to as being in its pedagogical state. Revelation in History has been progressive. It's revelation has been a series of eye opening events that build up for us to learn and know God. And that is for our benefit also.
(1Co 10:11) Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
If Job is what they claim, that it is the oldest book in the Bible, then God revealed to the early Church what he was fully going to do. Remember Job? It appears God revealed his plan early and then started revealing it progressively and with a lot of symbolism and word to help the Church grow in faith through history.

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

The book of Isaiah can't get any more explicit about the work of Christ and reconciliation. Isaiah 53 is one of the most explicit Chapters. All of revelation is pin pointed around this one event of God's work. It has caused many generations before and aft of the advent of Christ to seek a better foundation and promise.

(Heb 11:10) For he (Abraham) looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

They looked with faith to the future without seeing the fulfillment maybe. But they understood the same thing Abraham did when he offered Isaac. God was able to raise him from the dead if he so pleased. It was Abraham's job to do as God wanted him to do. That is living in heavenly places. And it puts me to shame. And I live on this side of the cross. I think a lot of the Old Testament guys saw things a bit better than I definitely do. They obeyed.

What does it mean that we received something "better" here? What does it mean that the OT saints should not be "made perfect" apart from us? Are we only talking about Gentile inclusion here? If OT salvation was already perfect and union with Christ effect in the same way, on what basis does Hebrews say that our situation is much better?

Well, let's look at the passage. OT salvation was not complete until the Lord finished His Work. Of course you can refer to passages like Hebrews 4 below to see they did have the Gospel preached to them as the whole world does today. But the work is said to have been done from the foundation of the World. At the same time Union in Christ is the same. Election, Predestination, Regeneration, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification are all a part of the life of the Old Covenant Believer. We are now participants in that Covenant as Gentiles being grafted into it. The truth of the matter is, is that Ephesians chapters 1 & 2 are true for both the Old Covenant Believer as well as the New Covenant Believer. Just look at where St. Paul is leading us. The Old Covenant Believer can't be made perfect apart from us since we are also being grafted in. We are being perfected as one new whole man. What a blessing to share in the Covenant of Grace with the Elect.


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

(Eph 2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(Eph 2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(Eph 2:10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
(Eph 2:11) Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
(Eph 2:12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
(Eph 2:13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
(Eph 2:14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
(Eph 2:15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
(Eph 2:16) And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
(Eph 2:17) And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
(Eph 2:18) For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
(Eph 2:19) Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

I hope I haven't cluttered it up or made it difficult to understand Dennis. I have much more to share also but this should do for now. BTW, you might check these two posts out and think about them also. The substance of the Old Covenant and New is the same. The administration has changed but the substance of them is the same. The works aspect of the Covenants and how we relate to the Covenant of Grace is what I believe gets confused. I made two posts on this thread that follow each other. Read them both and tell me what you think.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/kline-works-merit-pardigm-70896/#post908166

I just saw your note about sharing about my change Dennis. I don't want to make a big deal about it. You can read the following link to get a glimpse at some of it. It is also in the Kline Works-Merit Paradigm thread.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/kline-works-merit-pardigm-70896/#post908561

 

[Contra_Mundum]

were Moses and Isaiah united with the Christ that they knew in types and figures?

Absolutely.

Were they seated with Christ in heavenly places during the time of their ministry?

Absolutely. Although, I think this whole question requires considerable reflection on the nature of "office," especially OT office; and who had it, how it was divided, why there was a Temple, where the Temple was, what the barriers within the Temple indicated about the heavenly tableaux, and many other questions. A one-dimensional understanding of this concept of "seated with Christ in heaven"--a governmental metaphor--will only obscure what the concept is meant to convey.

Were they indwelt by the Spirit?

Depends. "Who" are you talking about, specifically? Human mediators, like those you mention? And, What do you mean by "indwelt?" Are you including a necessitarian (ala promissory) principle of permanence in that word? Are you equating Holy Spirit's efficiency with regeneration? What is your understanding of David's plea, "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me"?

Faith in the Promise saves. The Promise is Christ. Believe in him, however little or much revelation you have been given, and you will be saved. This is the principle of biblical religion.

Union is a powerfully covenantal concept. It contains the essence of Federal theology, of Representation. The head acts for the body; the body follows the head. If you are rightly engaged to the Promise, through the revelation you have been given, then you are united to the Head of that Promise.

I'm not sure what you're saying, by "retroactively applied" union (do I understand you?), applied to OT saints in heaven. Is this benefit "temporally" conditioned? Did they "wait for it" until it occurred historically? I'm sorry but, this sounds pretty ad hoc. As difficulties with your formulations arise, it looks like you are trying to retrofit your theory to accommodate for important issues that have no designed interface. I don't think your theory can take (for just one example) Heb.11:26 at face value: Moses "esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches that the treasures of Egypt; for he looked to the reward."

Faith seeks understanding. 1Pet.1:10-12,

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

Just because the prophets dealt in types, doesn't mean that they didn't have a proper encounter with the reality by faith. And, I have to say that Isaiah's encounter with Christ is about as unmediated an encounter as one can have, and live to tell about it.

Your appeal to Jesus' words to Thomas only advertises the fact that we may behold by faith what we do not have by sight. Therefore, Jesus is predicting that we are going to have to walk by faith, and not by sight, 2Cor.5:7. We are going to have to live like the saints of old for a while, Heb.11 (quite some time, as it turns out). But by your theological a prioris, you have cut the OT saints off from living by faith in Christ! And replaced Him with... ignorance, bare signs, an earth-bound eschatology.

Paul tells us not simply that we can map a New Theology to Old Beliefs. He tells us that the Old Testament believed what we believe in the New Testament. The main difference is time, a linear progression that tells the Story, not just relating to us a body of divinity, a compendium of facts about God by which to know him. He relates to us as created persons must relate to others--by time forged bonds of knowledge. We have more and better gifts by qualitative measures, due to our providential birth-order (and this advantage is confined to this present life!). But we do not have a different Gift.

 

[steadfast7]

After consideration, I'm certainly willing to concede to the points presented. A question remains as to why a sinner needs to place in the historical Jesus of Nazereth when it was not required of OT saints, who knew Christ through the type. I wonder if this theology might provide some (pluralists and Romanists) with ammunition about the possibility of there being an anonymous Christian - someone in a corner of the globe who does not have the full revelation, yet trusts in the concept of a Messiah-saviour.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

A question remains as to why a sinner needs to place in the historical Jesus of Nazereth when it was not required of OT saints, who knew Christ through the type. I wonder if this theology might provide some (pluralists and Romanists) with ammunition about the possibility of there being an anonymous Christian - someone in a corner of the globe who does not have the full revelation, yet trusts in the concept of a Messiah-saviour.

I just don't know how that can be. God is the author and finisher of our faith. In relation to your question and assessment I would have to just refer you to Cornelius' situation in Acts chapter 10. Maybe someone can do much better at answering your question. I do know that Jesus specifically said he was the only way and that Peter stated, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Dennis,
Revelation is progressive. Once it is given, it is necessary. If Adam and Eve believed in the proto-evangelium (Gen.3:15) they believed in the revealed Word to their salvation. But if Noah believed Gen.3:15, then he needed also to believe in the revelation of the coming flood as well. Not believing it would call the sincerity of his belief in the Seed of the woman into question. Clearly, he does believe it, because he builds his boat. There may have been others who claimed Gen.3:15, and who denied the preacher of righteousness, 2Pet.2:5, and went to hell.

I think texts like Act.17:30, and Heb.1:2 demonstrate the necessity of faith in Christ even for heathen, now that Christ has come.

When God called Abraham, knowledge of God was failing in the world once again. But, beside Abraham, there was Melchizedek. Fast-forward to the days of Israel, and there are no indications that there are people out in the world who know God, and follow some "limited" revelation. It just isn't there. Ps.9:17 "The wicked shall return to Sheol, all the nations that forget God." Its part of divine reprobation of the wicked that they do not preserve knowledge of him.

In theory, one could argue for some isolated family, that preserved a pre-Christian faith in the true God, and when knowledge of Christ comes, they embrace him. But there are problems with the very idea, besides its purely speculative quality.

What indications are there in Scripture that such a thing would or could happen? What is the uniform experience of missionaries who go forth with the gospel, after the days of the Apostles? Didn't the Apostles fulfill the Great Commission, so far as they could fulfill it in their day? If so, then we should conclude that they at least took the gospel to all the people of that age who were in any way prepared for the gospel, especially by contact with the OT religion.

And we should expect that, if God should grant to anyone of his elect in our age a desire to know him aright, then he will also see to it that the Word of Christ is brought to him. Why would God leave any of his elect in ignorance of so great salvation, now that it has come? It's only those who reject the principle of God's election, coupled with his promise of providing means to the end, who speculate about people being saved perhaps by following their natural lights, or some tidbit of revelation. Rom.1:28 indicates that men far from God don't like his revelation or his ways. If they get a glimpse of truth, they obscure it; they refuse to let it lead them on to the God with whom they are at enmity.

We are obligated, I think, to recognize that at present the only accurate thing we can say about a person who only has a fragment of the truth, is that he needs more, and perhaps God will grant it, by ordinary or extraordinary means. Otherwise, NOT to receive the truth one needs for salvation, once it has been revealed, and published, is to remain under the judgment of God. God isn't obligated to tell everyone the saving message, so that they can believe it or reject it. Not having an opportunity is also judgment.

Jesus said that if his miracles had been done in Sodom, that were done in Capernaum, the judgment of heaven would not have fallen, and the city remained to his day (Mt.11:23). Thus the hardheartedness of Capernaum was even greater and more blameworthy than Sodom's. But such a blessing was denied Sodom, and they perished in their sins.

 

[Goodcheer68]

I guess I still can't get my head around the idea that conversion in both epochs is identical.

Salvation has always been in Christ whether in the OT or NT.

21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

 

[Peairtach]

OT Israel (childhood Israel) is a type of NT Israel (mature Israel) and the OT Church (the childhood Church) is a type of the NT Church (the mature Church), but the Church/Israel continues in the NT.

It is of the essence of the Abrahamic Covenant which was established 430 years before Moses, that when someone is ingrafted into this Covenant, his family is included if he has a family.