Credo-Baptism Answers Circumcised hearts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Braden

Puritan Board Freshman
How is it that the Old Covenant is merely outward and temporal if God keeps telling the Israelites to circumcise the foreskins of their hearts?
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
How is it that the Old Covenant is merely outward and temporal if God keeps telling the Israelites to circumcise the foreskins of their hearts?
The Old Covenant wasn't merely outward and temporal. It was essentially spiritual while also having outward and temporal aspects.
 

SeanPatrickCornell

Puritan Board Sophomore
So how was it not the Covenant of Grace?

Because the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace.

If the Old Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, we wouldn't have needed the New Covenant.

If the Old Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, every member of the Old Covenant would have had circumcised hearts and not need to be told to have circumcised hearts.
 

Jerrod Hess

Puritan Board Freshman
The Old Covenant was the covenant of grace. Do you think this principle necessitates paedobaptism? If so, why?
 

SeanPatrickCornell

Puritan Board Sophomore
The Old Covenant was the covenant of grace. Do you think this principle necessitates paedobaptism? If so, why?

Why do we need a New Covenant if the Old Covenant is the Covenant of Grace?

How is the New Covenant better if (Hebrews 8:6) if the Old Covenant is the Covenant of Grace?
 

SeanPatrickCornell

Puritan Board Sophomore
I could never make sense of 1 Cor 10:1-4 with what you stated above. Genuinely asking how you would interpret this passage in light of what you said... How would you explain v3, 4 & 5 being that the Covenant of Grace starts in the NT.

1 Cor 10:1-4
10 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

This is the Credo-Baptist Answers forum. You really ought not be posting. But since you did, I hope you benefit from this article by our Brother Brandon Adams.


Hopefully this article speaks to some of your concerns.

Edit: Might want to check this one out too.

 

Jerrod Hess

Puritan Board Freshman
Why do we need a New Covenant if the Old Covenant is the Covenant of Grace?

How is the New Covenant better if (Hebrews 8:6) if the Old Covenant is the Covenant of Grace?
We need a covenant of grace to save us from Covenant of Works we fell in. The New Covenant is the full manifestation of this Covenant of Grace (LBCF 7.3), wherein Jesus Christ is fully set forth without types and shadows. Christ's death was efficacious from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8)
 

SeanPatrickCornell

Puritan Board Sophomore
We need a covenant of grace to save us from Covenant of Works we fell in. The New Covenant is the full manifestation of this Covenant of Grace (LBCF 7.3), wherein Jesus Christ is fully set forth without types and shadows. Christ's death was efficacious from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8)

This doesn't answer either of the questions I asked.
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
Because the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace.

If the Old Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, we wouldn't have needed the New Covenant.

If the Old Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, every member of the Old Covenant would have had circumcised hearts and not need to be told to have circumcised hearts.
Brother,

If I may ask, how do you square equating the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant with the language of our Confession which speaks of them as two distinct things?

This covenant [of grace] is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament.—Baptist Confession of Faith, VII.3

How can the full revelation of the Covenant of Grace be "completed in the New Testament" if it is the New Testament?
 
Last edited:

SeanPatrickCornell

Puritan Board Sophomore
Brother,

If I may ask, how do you square equating the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant with the language of our Confession which speaks of them as two distinct things?

This covenant [of grace] is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament.—Baptist Confession of Faith, VII.3

How can the full revelation of the Covenant of Grace be "completed in the New Testament" if it is the New Testament?

The Confession does not directly say that the Covenant of Grace is "distinct" from the New Covenant. It actually (and for good reason) doesn't touch on that topic at all. The Confession is embraced by those who equate the CoG only with the NT (for example, most of the 17th century Particular Baptists including those that wrote it) as well as those who consider the NT to be an administration of the CoG (a minority of 17th century PBs and a majority of 20th century Reformed Baptists).

The Covenant of Grace (New Covenant) was revealed (the definition of that word is important) first of all to Adam. I don't see how this in any way conflicts with my view. Considering that the men who wrote that down agree with my view, it's strange to have it questioned.

As a Board Member of CBTS, do you have access to anyone that has a robust knowledge of 1689 Federalism? I think Rex Semrad embraces 1689 Federalism. If he doesn't, I'm grossly mistaken. Dr. Richard Barcellos is listed on the Faculty page, and he's absolutely, positively, a full blown adherent to 1689 Federalism.
 

Jerrod Hess

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm honestly just tired of the misnomer '20th century Baptist'. But let us return to the original topic.
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
Because the term "Covenant of Grace" does not appear in the Bible, it seems silly to have a hard-line stance on what it means. Why not simply remember that God gave his Son an elect people, all of whom Christ died for. All of us, from Adam to the last convert, are saved because Christ died for our sins.
The OT saints were saved by grace because they believed that God would send a Messiah to take away their sins. The types and shadows were simply teaching tools, but the root of the matter was in the heart.
And so salvation has always been of grace, and those saved were covenanted for by God the Father and God the Son in eternity past. I believe the LBCF calls this the "Covenant of Redemption."
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Freshman
How is it that the Old Covenant is merely outward and temporal if God keeps telling the Israelites to circumcise the foreskins of their hearts?
To get this thread back to the original topic:

The question should be refined further. When you say "merely outward and temporal" what precisely do you mean?
  • The blessings and curses of the Old Covenant were merely outward and temporal
  • The obedience required in order to receive the blessings was external/outward
Furthermore, what do you believe is meant by telling the Israelites to circumcise the foreskin of their heart. Also, you say that God keeps telling them to. Can you list the verses you have in mind?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top