Covenant of Grace

[Grant]

The one where it was the CoG after the CoW was ended.

So you selected the first choice........hmmmm

Dachaser..I think you might be VERY close to becoming a Presbyterian ..muahahaha

I say this because my understanding of 1689 LBC vs. Westminster Standards is depicted below (this is from www.1689federalism.com):

 

[Scott Bushey]

We are now under the newer and better, more sure Covenant, correct?

Yes, but that 'better' covenant is the C of G. Christ dying was the consummating moment in time, i.e. "it is finished", i.e. It has begun (back in Gen 3).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

You won't find the CoR (council of peace) found explicitly in Scripture. Rather it was teased out by early church divines from the full counsel of Scripture.

Purely for clarification...

Zech.6:13 makes a reference to "the counsel of peace between them both;" so it's probably fair to say that the theological choice of terms by some party was made specifically with this sort of terminology close in the background, to connect it to biblical language.

There is an interpretive debate as to whether "the two of them" are 1) a reference to concord and eventual union in Messiah of the throne (monarchy, Zerubbabel) and the miter (priesthood, Joshua); or 2) converse between Jehovah as King and his Messiah-Branch (cf. Is.49:1-13, which is I think a fair description of the CoR).

 

[Dachaser]

Yes, but that 'better' covenant is the C of G. Christ dying was the consummating moment in time, i.e. "it is finished", i.e. It has begun (back in Gen 3).

We have all spiritual blessings now in Christ, as those were not all there for the OT saints who had been saved by the Lord.

 

[Dachaser]

So you selected the first choice........hmmmm

Dachaser..I think you might be VERY close to becoming a Presbyterian ..muahahaha

I say this because my understanding of 1689 LBC vs. Westminster Standards is depicted below (this is from www.1689federalism.com):View attachment 5677

I have gone form being a Charismatic baptist, to a Dispensational one, to being a preMil Reformed Baptist person, but water baptism and the question on just how new is the New Covenant prevents me from going over all of the way.

 

[Scott Bushey]

We have all spiritual blessings now in Christ, as those were not all there for the OT saints who had been saved by the Lord.

What might those be?

 

[Dachaser]

What might those be?

Direct access to God, Jesus being our High Priest, having the intercession of the Holy Spirit for us in our prayers to God, straight path to heaven at death, for some of those!

 

[TheOldCourse]

Direct access to God, Jesus being our High Priest, having the intercession of the Holy Spirit for us in our prayers to God, straight path to heaven at death, for some of those!

King David, and the rest of the OT saints, would demur.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Direct access to God, Jesus being our High Priest, having the intercession of the Holy Spirit for us in our prayers to God, straight path to heaven at death, for some of those!

David,
You’re kidding, right?

 

[Scott Bushey]

In many ways the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints: we have the scriptures, they had real prophets, God speaking directly to His people, theophanies, etc. Christ was the same for them. There has only been one mediator to God, for all time.

 

[Grant]

In many ways the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints: we have the scriptures, they had real prophets, God speaking directly to His people, theophanies, etc. Christ was the same for them. There has only been one mediator to God, for all time.

Uh.....I am thankful to be a NT saint....For one: can you imagine being an adult male convert in the OT (the OT sign/seal)..

Hopefully it is obvious why in other ways as well.

 

[Dachaser]

King David, and the rest of the OT saints, would demur.

The Holy Spirit came and went upon those such as prophets and Kings correct? They had to go through the sacrificial system and the priest, not straight to throne of Grace, correct? They had no high priest in heaven, as there was just the one upon the earth. correct?

 

[Dachaser]

In many ways the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints: we have the scriptures, they had real prophets, God speaking directly to His people, theophanies, etc. Christ was the same for them. There has only been one mediator to God, for all time.

They did not have the empowerment of the Holy Spirit as we do today, did not have the full scriptures, they did not have direct and immediate access to God, so glad to be under the NC.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Both your posts above are theologically flawed and tainted with dispensationalism.

Consider the elect person of the OT, regenerated and converted, yet did not have the HS in dwelling them. They would immediately apostatize the faith.

All believers have to had have the HS indwelling- never mind the time period. The time of Acts, described in the book of Joel is an amplification only.

If the OT saint did not have Christ as mediator, they all perished.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

Yes, but that 'better' covenant is the C of G. Christ dying was the consummating moment in time, i.e. "it is finished", i.e. It has begun (back in Gen 3).

Could you elaborate? What Covenants do you think the writer of Hebrews was contrasting?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Could you elaborate? What Covenants do you think the writer of Hebrews was contrasting?

Let me ask u a question: How is it that on one hand the Mosaic is a gracious covenant, i.e. men were saved under gospel preaching during that age, yet the Apostle Paul calls the decalogue a "ministration of death". How can it be both?


2 Corinthians 3:7

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:



The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 2 Co 3:7.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

Let me ask u a question: How is it that on one hand the Mosaic is a gracious covenant, i.e. men were saved under gospel preaching during that age, yet the Apostle Paul calls the decalogue a "ministration of death". How can it be both?


2 Corinthians 3:7

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:



The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 2 Co 3:7.

Because the outward administration of the Mosaic Covenant involved works in regard to how the nation should act. But I think you probably have a better answer. What is the answer? Help a younger brother out.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I believe the writer of Hebrews and the Apostle Paul are speaking specifically to those people who are in the external side of the C of G and the internal side of the C of W's. Trying to get justification by law keeping will surely kill you.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

I believe the writer of Hebrews and the Apostle Paul are speaking specifically to those people who are in the external side of the C of G and the internal side of the C of W's. Trying to get justification by law keeping will surely kill you.

That makes sense. I'll try rereading them with that in mind and see where it goes. Thx

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yea, it's not the Mosaic or decalogue per se, but those trying to get justified by the work; because the Mosaic is a graceful covenant.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

In many ways the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints: we have the scriptures, they had real prophets, God speaking directly to His people, theophanies, etc. Christ was the same for them. There has only been one mediator to God, for all time.

Scott, you have stated that some on the PuritanBoard are guilty of a form of dispensationalism but I don't think this statement is any better. Read Hebrews 1. "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son". In light of this statement contrasting the Fathers to 'today', I cannot see how you can claim 'the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints'.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I cannot see how you can claim 'the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints'.

'Hands up' was probably a bad description; they did however, have a benefit that we don't. That being, what I've said above.

The 1st chapter of Hebrews has to be read in it's proper light; Did the OT saint have communication w/ Christ? I am confident they did. It's an interesting statement for sure. I believe much of what the writer is saying is now we have the physical manifestation of the son in human form as well as the actual words of Christ to reflect upon, whereas in times past, it was theophanies only. But then again, Christ is God, right?

In regards to dispensationalism; I am confident that you know the difference between biblical dispensations and dispensationalism. I was not referring to the former, which is acceptable.

All epochs of time had special benefits; one is not truly better than the other. Compare the canon to God speaking directly to His people or that they actually had prophets. There are special blessings attached to each time period.

 

[TheOldCourse]

The Holy Spirit came and went upon those such as prophets and Kings correct? They had to go through the sacrificial system and the priest, not straight to throne of Grace, correct? They had no high priest in heaven, as there was just the one upon the earth. correct?

Read the Psalms (hence my reference to King David), was his communion with God, his pleas he laid before the throne of grace, any less intimate than ours? If they had no high priest in heaven, how were their sins atoned for? We know it was not by the blood of beasts. It's true that, temporally speaking, Jesus had not consummated his priestly office yet, however Christ was their high priest no less. The temple apparatus was a shadow of heavenly things. How can things which did not exist for them cast shadows? While we see the reality behind those shadows more clearly with greater revelation, the reality was still present for the OT saints.

 

[Ben Zartman]

So you selected the first choice........hmmmm

Dachaser..I think you might be VERY close to becoming a Presbyterian ..muahahaha

I say this because my understanding of 1689 LBC vs. Westminster Standards is depicted below (this is from www.1689federalism.com):View attachment 5677

Sorry to jump in so late in the thread; I've been away most of the week. I just had to chime in, though, and say that "1689 Federalism" is NOT the view of most of us Reformed Baptists. A lot of the differences between what we began to call "Vanilla RB" and Federalism (for the sake of distinction) were hashed out in great detail over the course of several threads almost a year ago. If I were more computer savvy I'd find the links, but I'm helpless in that regard.
I might not have piped up at all, but I do not care to be tarred with the same brush as the 1689 Federalists. So, simply put:
Salvation has always been of grace. So the CoG began the moment God declared a savior from sins in Gen 3. All grace is found in Christ, to whom all the covenants were leading up. But the covenants were administered differently in different ages as God saw fit: He was painting pictures, as it were: physical pictures of spiritual realities. The New Covenant is new because it is the culmination, the apex, the glorious pinnacle that all the OT types and shadows were leading up to. But in all ages salvation was all of grace.

 

[Grant]

Sorry to jump in so late in the thread; I've been away most of the week. I just had to chime in, though, and say that "1689 Federalism" is NOT the view of most of us Reformed Baptists. A lot of the differences between what we began to call "Vanilla RB" and Federalism (for the sake of distinction) were hashed out in great detail over the course of several threads almost a year ago. If I were more computer savvy I'd find the links, but I'm helpless in that regard.
I might not have piped up at all, but I do not care to be tarred with the same brush as the 1689 Federalists. So, simply put:
Salvation has always been of grace. So the CoG began the moment God declared a savior from sins in Gen 3. All grace is found in Christ, to whom all the covenants were leading up. But the covenants were administered differently in different ages as God saw fit: He was painting pictures, as it were: physical pictures of spiritual realities. The New Covenant is new because it is the culmination, the apex, the glorious pinnacle that all the OT types and shadows were leading up to. But in all ages salvation was all of grace.

Ben,

Thanks for contributing. No apology needed, this has been a great thread. I agree I have come across two different types of reformed baptist with very different CT.

The 1689federalism site used to have a chart comparing 1689 federalism and the other RB view(of which you speak) of CT, but i cannot find it on there site anymore, nor can i recall what they entitled it.
But what I do remember is that the only (using loosely so everyone calm down) difference between the “vanilla RB” and Westminster CT is the visible church membership (children of believing parents) and the sign application.

To which I say.... “Your almost there!!”...haha respectfully

As a former baptist and when I held to the 2LBC I held your view of CT and disagreed with the 1689federalist. However, those guys seem to claim to have the more historical RB view.

 

[Dachaser]

Both your posts above are theologically flawed and tainted with dispensationalism.

Consider the elect person of the OT, regenerated and converted, yet did not have the HS in dwelling them. They would immediately apostatize the faith.

All believers have to had have the HS indwelling- never mind the time period. The time of Acts, described in the book of Joel is an amplification only.

If the OT saint did not have Christ as mediator, they all perished.

Hebrews 10:16 seems to show to us that the NC was indeed a new work of God, in which ALL of the saved under it now would receive the promised Holy Spirit inwardly.
I have also read reformed authors who seem to think that OT believers were regenerated by God, but not all indwelt, as that was reserved for prophets/priests and Kings.

 

[Dachaser]

Read the Psalms (hence my reference to King David), was his communion with God, his pleas he laid before the throne of grace, any less intimate than ours? If they had no high priest in heaven, how were their sins atoned for? We know it was not by the blood of beasts. It's true that, temporally speaking, Jesus had not consummated his priestly office yet, however Christ was their high priest no less. The temple apparatus was a shadow of heavenly things. How can things which did not exist for them cast shadows? While we see the reality behind those shadows more clearly with greater revelation, the reality was still present for the OT saints.

Prophets/priests and the Kings had the presence of the Holy Spirit, but he did seem to come upon them when needed, and not be sealed in them.

 

[Dachaser]

Ben,

Thanks for contributing. No apology needed, this has been a great thread. I agree I have come across two different types of reformed baptist with very different CT.

The 1689federalism site used to have a chart comparing 1689 federalism and the other RB view(of which you speak) of CT, but i cannot find it on there site anymore, nor can i recall what they entitled it.
But what I do remember is that the only (using loosely so everyone calm down) difference between the “vanilla RB” and Westminster CT is the visible church membership (children of believing parents) and the sign application.

To which I say.... “Your almost there!!”...haha respectfully

As a former baptist and when I held to the 2LBC I held your view of CT and disagreed with the 1689federalist. However, those guys seem to claim to have the more historical RB view.

Their viewpoint is said to agree more with the 1689 LBCF.

 

[Dachaser]

'Hands up' was probably a bad description; they did however, have a benefit that we don't. That being, what I've said above.

The 1st chapter of Hebrews has to be read in it's proper light; Did the OT saint have communication w/ Christ? I am confident they did. It's an interesting statement for sure. I believe much of what the writer is saying is now we have the physical manifestation of the son in human form as well as the actual words of Christ to reflect upon, whereas in times past, it was theophanies only. But then again, Christ is God, right?

In regards to dispensationalism; I am confident that you know the difference between biblical dispensations and dispensationalism. I was not referring to the former, which is acceptable.

All epochs of time had special benefits; one is not truly better than the other. Compare the canon to God speaking directly to His people or that they actually had prophets. There are special blessings attached to each time period.

The author of Hebrews though would see the NC as transcending the OC, being much superior to any prior workings between God and man.

 

[Gforce9]

Hebrews 10:16 seems to show to us that the NC was indeed a new work of God, in which ALL of the saved under it now would receive the promised Holy Spirit inwardly.
I have also read reformed authors who seem to think that OT believers were regenerated by God, but not all indwelt, as that was reserved for prophets/priests and Kings.

Prophets/priests and the Kings had the presence of the Holy Spirit, but he did seem to come upon them when needed, and not be sealed in them.

I have some questions for you:
1- How did the O.T. saint come to believe in the promise? Was it his own will? When the H.S. "left" (oh, I don't know, to go on vacation or to check up on someone else?!?), how did that saint continue to believe? Did sanctification cease for that period of time?
2- How does your church treat people in the pew that you don't deem "saved" (what if someone accidentally forgot the regeneration goggles next to the coffee pot at home?)?