"Faith was not the condition of the Mosaic Covenant"?

[Pergamum]

Perg,

I've enjoyed reading through all of your recent threads on this topic, its created some good discussion!

To your question, Paul seems to make it very clear in Gal 3 (amongst other places as well) that the defining characteristic of the Law (mosaic covenant) is that it is a works covenant not a faith covenant. I'm curious to know the problem you have with the 'defenders' quote is, if you do have one?

Thanks for your comments. Yes, it has been a good discussion.

I believe faith in a coming Messiah was always a requirement. Moses promised that God would raise up a Prophet like unto him and Abraham saw Christ's day and was glad for it. The Mosaic sacrifices pointed to the coming Sacrifice.

Do you believe faith was NOT a requirement for OT Israel? Moses pointed to Christ. To say that faith was not a requirement seems to miss one of the main purposes of the Mosaic Covenant, to lead to Christ and give the people a further hunger and thirst for a sacrifice that did not need repeated.

Am I wrong in this?

 

[Pergamum]

Correct. This is known as the subservient covenant view.

(Note: be careful to understand precisely in what sense I mean it was not an administration of the CoG: I mean that it was not the CoG. It did reveal the CoG and place the gospel before people in types and shadows.)

This view is disturbing to me.

If the Mosaic Covenant was a free-standing covenant, this appears to mean that it does not push forward God's redemptive plan, but seems more like a side-show that interrupts the flow of the narrative of the One Story of Redemption.

It introduces needless discontinuity and makes a large portion of the OT merely about physical things. When I come to the Bible I see it as one book about spiritual things, not a book about physical things.

 

[brandonadams]

Pergumum, the name subservient itself means it is not "a side-show" but that it is subservient to the CoG, though distinct from it. Its entire point was to typologically reveal the gospel and the Covenant of Grace. Once again, you're judging way too rashly. Slow down and read the position first.

 

[Pergamum]

Pergumum, the name subservient itself means it is not "a side-show" but that it is subservient to the CoG, though distinct from it. Its entire point was to typologically reveal the gospel and the Covenant of Grace. Once again, you're judging way too rashly. Slow down and read the position first.

So it still advances the plan of salvation? It reveals the gospel and yet many say it is merely a covenant of works? Do you admit that there are gracious elements in it?

 

[JTB.SDG]

There are 4 Classical Views of these things that are held by those whom the Puritans referred to as "the learned": IE, there are 4 credible views one can hold. That's not to say that all of them are advocated by the WCF. First is that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works; second is that it was a Mixed covenant--partly a covenant of works, partly a covenant of grace; third is that it was a subservient covenant (this is Brandon's view), and fourthly that it was a covenant of grace. The great majority of the Puritans took the fourth view as their own and rejected the others, though there are a few exceptions; as Brandon pointed out, Samuel Bolton advocated the Subservient View, and John Owen seems to as well. (Note: for more on these things see also the OPC Report here on Republication as Bruce has alluded to before, a lot of good info).

The Fourth View is the view articulated in the WCF. It also has a number of SUB-views. For instance, some tend to, it seems, deny any presence of a legal component in the Mosaic Covenant; saying that Rom.10; Gal.3; and 2 Cor.3 are basically Paul quoting his opponents view (that the Law taught "do this and live") but then disagreeing with that. That is something the Puritans would throw out here and there, but it was never the majority consensus on these texts. The majority of the Puritans understood that there was indeed a legal component to Moses. They recognized this; they struggled with it. How did they resolve it? How can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace when it tells us: "Do this and live" (IE, obey FOR life)? Isn't the requirement of the Covenant of Grace faith? So how can Moses require obedience and be part of the Covenant of Grace?

The way the vast majority of 4th view Puritans (IE, the majority of the Puritans in general) resolved this was to understand the Law in two different ways. I've posted about this now several times, but it is really, really important to understand, especially since this truth seems to have been lost to our present generation (I felt like Josiah when I started reading about it--then saw it again and again in the writings of the Puritans). You have to understand the Mosaic Covenant from TWO perspectives: 1) LARGELY taken: this includes everything about how Christ is revealed; this is why it is part of the Covenant of Grace; and even commands faith--Rom.10:6ff). 2) STRICTLY taken: the Law, in and of itself, "abstracted" from the Mosaic Covenant, is indeed a *repetition* (not republication) of the Covenant of Works. How so? Because it commands perfect, personal, perpetual obedience as the cause of life and curses any and all who fall short. This is NOT a republication of the Covenant of Works, because the Covenant of Works itself is non-repeatable; it happened in Genesis 2; it was broken, the covenant was shattered and there was no going back. We're all born under the curse. BUT it was a repetition of the Covenant of Works. IE, it was the same CONTENT as the Covenant of Works. Hence, Romans 3:21: "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law. . ." The righteousness that is by FAITH is manifested in and witnessed by the Law--Christ is in the Law. This is the Law Largely taken. Yet, this same righteousness is apart from the Law. How so? It's apart from the Law as strictly taken; IE, it's a completely different system than the bare command of the Law: "do and live".

So, how can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace but tell us "Do and live"? We don't water down the "do and live" component. Rather, we present it there in all its rigor. And we say that is indeed the content of the Covenant of Works. That is the Law strictly taken, as abstracted from the grace revealed in the Mosaic Covenant. But the Law strictly taken, the whole purpose of it, was to lead us to the Law largely taken; that is, to Christ and the gospel. The whole point of God telling us "Do and live" in the Mosaic Covenant is to break us and draw us to the grace of "believe and live" revealed elsewhere in the Mosaic Covenant. That's how it all fits together. The thing is: Law and Covenant are not equal. That's where I see a lot of folks go wrong. Rather, Law is SUBSERVIENT to Covenant (Note: not talking about the 3rd view; no disrespect Brandon). The Law serves the Covenant. The bare law, the law in and of itself, says "do and live"; this is why it is a repetition of the CONTENT of the Covenant of Works. But that same Law serves and submits and is subservient to the Covenant, which we would call the Law as largely taken, which is why we take the Mosaic Covenant to belong to the Covenant of Grace. The Puritans wrote extensively about all of this, but I never got this at seminary; I had to dig.

 

[brandonadams]

So it still advances the plan of salvation?

Yes.

It reveals the gospel and yet many say it is merely a covenant of works?

Yes.

Do you admit that there are gracious elements in it?

Yes.

 

[timfost]

From Fesko on diversity of opinion of Westminster divines:

"Calamy identifies the fourfold scheme with “M. Sympson,”a likely reference to Sydrach Simpson (ca. 1600–1655), one of the divines. Simpson’s view entailed four covenants: a covenant of works with Adam, a covenant of grace with Abraham, a covenant of works with Israel, and another covenant of grace, which was the new covenant. Calamy connects a second position with Jeremiah Burroughs (ca. 1600–1646), another Westminster divine. According to Calamy, Burroughs held a threefold scheme involving a covenant of works with Adam, another covenant of works with Israel, and a covenant of grace through Christ. Calamy identifies a third position with James Pope (fl. 1675) as its chief advocate. 79 According to Calamy, Pope believed that there were only two covenants: a covenant of works with Israel (with no previous covenant with Adam) and a covenant of grace. The fourth position Calamy associates with Westminster divine Anthony Burgess, who supposedly held a threefold view. In this view there was a covenant of works with Adam, a covenant of grace with Israel, and a second covenant of grace beyond that made with Israel. The fifth and last position Calamy claims as his own, which was the more common twofold view: covenants of works and grace. These taxonomies are very important as they represent historically contextual analyses, not those of modern historians, of the various views present among the members of the assembly and beyond."

 

[Pergamum]

Yes.



Yes.



Yes.

It does not seem that our views are all that very far apart. Thanks for the clarifications.

 

[Pergamum]

There are 4 Classical Views of these things that are held by those whom the Puritans referred to as "the learned": IE, there are 4 credible views one can hold. That's not to say that all of them are advocated by the WCF. First is that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works; second is that it was a Mixed covenant--partly a covenant of works, partly a covenant of grace; third is that it was a subservient covenant (this is Brandon's view), and fourthly that it was a covenant of grace. The great majority of the Puritans took the fourth view as their own and rejected the others, though there are a few exceptions; as Brandon pointed out, Samuel Bolton advocated the Subservient View, and John Owen seems to as well. (Note: for more on these things see also the OPC Report here on Republication as Bruce has alluded to before, a lot of good info).

The Fourth View is the view articulated in the WCF. It also has a number of SUB-views. For instance, some tend to, it seems, deny any presence of a legal component in the Mosaic Covenant; saying that Rom.10; Gal.3; and 2 Cor.3 are basically Paul quoting his opponents view (that the Law taught "do this and live") but then disagreeing with that. That is something the Puritans would throw out here and there, but it was never the majority consensus on these texts. The majority of the Puritans understood that there was indeed a legal component to Moses. They recognized this; they struggled with it. How did they resolve it? How can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace when it tells us: "Do this and live" (IE, obey FOR life)? Isn't the requirement of the Covenant of Grace faith? So how can Moses require obedience and be part of the Covenant of Grace?

The way the vast majority of 4th view Puritans (IE, the majority of the Puritans in general) resolved this was to understand the Law in two different ways. I've posted about this now several times, but it is really, really important to understand, especially since this truth seems to have been lost to our present generation (I felt like Josiah when I started reading about it--then saw it again and again in the writings of the Puritans). You have to understand the Mosaic Covenant from TWO perspectives: 1) LARGELY taken: this includes everything about how Christ is revealed; this is why it is part of the Covenant of Grace; and even commands faith--Rom.10:6ff). 2) STRICTLY taken: the Law, in and of itself, "abstracted" from the Mosaic Covenant, is indeed a *repetition* (not republication) of the Covenant of Works. How so? Because it commands perfect, personal, perpetual obedience as the cause of life and curses any and all who fall short. This is NOT a republication of the Covenant of Works, because the Covenant of Works itself is non-repeatable; it happened in Genesis 2; it was broken, the covenant was shattered and there was no going back. We're all born under the curse. BUT it was a repetition of the Covenant of Works. IE, it was the same CONTENT as the Covenant of Works. Hence, Romans 3:21: "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law. . ." The righteousness that is by FAITH is manifested in and witnessed by the Law--Christ is in the Law. This is the Law Largely taken. Yet, this same righteousness is apart from the Law. How so? It's apart from the Law as strictly taken; IE, it's a completely different system than the bare command of the Law: "do and live".

So, how can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace but tell us "Do and live"? We don't water down the "do and live" component. Rather, we present it there in all its rigor. And we say that is indeed the content of the Covenant of Works. That is the Law strictly taken, as abstracted from the grace revealed in the Mosaic Covenant. But the Law strictly taken, the whole purpose of it, was to lead us to the Law largely taken; that is, to Christ and the gospel. The whole point of God telling us "Do and live" in the Mosaic Covenant is to break us and draw us to the grace of "believe and live" revealed elsewhere in the Mosaic Covenant. That's how it all fits together. The thing is: Law and Covenant are not equal. That's where I see a lot of folks go wrong. Rather, Law is SUBSERVIENT to Covenant (Note: not talking about the 3rd view; no disrespect Brandon). The Law serves the Covenant. The bare law, the law in and of itself, says "do and live"; this is why it is a repetition of the CONTENT of the Covenant of Works. But that same Law serves and submits and is subservient to the Covenant, which we would call the Law as largely taken, which is why we take the Mosaic Covenant to belong to the Covenant of Grace. The Puritans wrote extensively about all of this, but I never got this at seminary; I had to dig.

Thank you. That was helpful.

 

[Pergamum]

There are 4 Classical Views of these things that are held by those whom the Puritans referred to as "the learned": IE, there are 4 credible views one can hold. That's not to say that all of them are advocated by the WCF. First is that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works; second is that it was a Mixed covenant--partly a covenant of works, partly a covenant of grace; third is that it was a subservient covenant (this is Brandon's view), and fourthly that it was a covenant of grace. The great majority of the Puritans took the fourth view as their own and rejected the others, though there are a few exceptions; as Brandon pointed out, Samuel Bolton advocated the Subservient View, and John Owen seems to as well. (Note: for more on these things see also the OPC Report here on Republication as Bruce has alluded to before, a lot of good info).

The Fourth View is the view articulated in the WCF. It also has a number of SUB-views. For instance, some tend to, it seems, deny any presence of a legal component in the Mosaic Covenant; saying that Rom.10; Gal.3; and 2 Cor.3 are basically Paul quoting his opponents view (that the Law taught "do this and live") but then disagreeing with that. That is something the Puritans would throw out here and there, but it was never the majority consensus on these texts. The majority of the Puritans understood that there was indeed a legal component to Moses. They recognized this; they struggled with it. How did they resolve it? How can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace when it tells us: "Do this and live" (IE, obey FOR life)? Isn't the requirement of the Covenant of Grace faith? So how can Moses require obedience and be part of the Covenant of Grace?

The way the vast majority of 4th view Puritans (IE, the majority of the Puritans in general) resolved this was to understand the Law in two different ways. I've posted about this now several times, but it is really, really important to understand, especially since this truth seems to have been lost to our present generation (I felt like Josiah when I started reading about it--then saw it again and again in the writings of the Puritans). You have to understand the Mosaic Covenant from TWO perspectives: 1) LARGELY taken: this includes everything about how Christ is revealed; this is why it is part of the Covenant of Grace; and even commands faith--Rom.10:6ff). 2) STRICTLY taken: the Law, in and of itself, "abstracted" from the Mosaic Covenant, is indeed a *repetition* (not republication) of the Covenant of Works. How so? Because it commands perfect, personal, perpetual obedience as the cause of life and curses any and all who fall short. This is NOT a republication of the Covenant of Works, because the Covenant of Works itself is non-repeatable; it happened in Genesis 2; it was broken, the covenant was shattered and there was no going back. We're all born under the curse. BUT it was a repetition of the Covenant of Works. IE, it was the same CONTENT as the Covenant of Works. Hence, Romans 3:21: "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law. . ." The righteousness that is by FAITH is manifested in and witnessed by the Law--Christ is in the Law. This is the Law Largely taken. Yet, this same righteousness is apart from the Law. How so? It's apart from the Law as strictly taken; IE, it's a completely different system than the bare command of the Law: "do and live".

So, how can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace but tell us "Do and live"? We don't water down the "do and live" component. Rather, we present it there in all its rigor. And we say that is indeed the content of the Covenant of Works. That is the Law strictly taken, as abstracted from the grace revealed in the Mosaic Covenant. But the Law strictly taken, the whole purpose of it, was to lead us to the Law largely taken; that is, to Christ and the gospel. The whole point of God telling us "Do and live" in the Mosaic Covenant is to break us and draw us to the grace of "believe and live" revealed elsewhere in the Mosaic Covenant. That's how it all fits together. The thing is: Law and Covenant are not equal. That's where I see a lot of folks go wrong. Rather, Law is SUBSERVIENT to Covenant (Note: not talking about the 3rd view; no disrespect Brandon). The Law serves the Covenant. The bare law, the law in and of itself, says "do and live"; this is why it is a repetition of the CONTENT of the Covenant of Works. But that same Law serves and submits and is subservient to the Covenant, which we would call the Law as largely taken, which is why we take the Mosaic Covenant to belong to the Covenant of Grace. The Puritans wrote extensively about all of this, but I never got this at seminary; I had to dig.

Thank you. That was helpful.

 

[KMK]

If faith was not a condition of the Mosaic, then what was?

 

[BG]

From Abraham forward most of the members of the church came into it as infants showing us that God is a covenant keeping God who primarily works through families. Are we to believe that they preformed these religious acts required by God even though they didn't believe in him?

Some outsiders or foreigners unbelievers came in through the sacrament of circumcision, this made them full
members of the church consequently they were assimilated into the tribes of Israel and treated as one born in the land in other words full Israelites. It is highly unlikely that they entered into the Covenant without any faith , i'm thinking it took a great deal of faith to undergo the procedure.

Biblical circumcision allowed a person entrance into the church whether young or old but faith kept you there if you did not have faith you were to be put out.

Deuteronomy chapter 6 is a good example of what God required of all circumcised members of the church.

4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might


Some would have us believe that external obedience to God is not a sign of faith.

I freely admit that a person can be externally obedient and yet not have faith but from a human standpoint it's all we have to go on,as James says you show me your faith I will show you my works unfortunately faith is invisible.


One of the problems I see with dispensationalism is the tendency to believe that the theology of stiffnecked unbelieving dead branch Israelites is in fact orthodox biblical theology this is a real mistake a stumbling block for them.

 

[KMK]

No. (Some have made imprecise statements). We believe it was a covenant of works, but certainly not the Covenant of Works. Its reward was not eschatological life but rather life and blessing in the land of Canaan. Note Owen:

Thanks. The answer from your website says this:

While holding that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works, meaning it operated upon the works principle, 17th century particular baptists varied on what reward was offered by the Mosaic Covenant. Nehemiah Coxe agreed with John Owen that the Mosaic Covenant was only about temporal life in the land of Canaan, not eternal life. This is the view articulated in the videos on this site. Others said it potentially offered eternal life for perfect obedience. This is the view articulated by Jeffery Johnson.

Is this an area where there is latitude within the movement?

 

[Dachaser]

Thanks. The answer from your website says this:

While holding that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works, meaning it operated upon the works principle, 17th century particular baptists varied on what reward was offered by the Mosaic Covenant. Nehemiah Coxe agreed with John Owen that the Mosaic Covenant was only about temporal life in the land of Canaan, not eternal life. This is the view articulated in the videos on this site. Others said it potentially offered eternal life for perfect obedience. This is the view articulated by Jeffery Johnson.

Is this an area where there is latitude within the movement?

There were two aspects to the Mosaic Covenant between God and Israel, as there were indeed grace elements within it, as the Covenant of Grace would have always the coming/promise Messiah in mind, but there were also conditional promises made based upon how well they kept the commands and ways of God, as much of Gods dealing with them was centered on the physical aspects of health, land, protection etc.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes.

So that would be the CoG elements within it, but the primary premise and promise was temporal promises rooted in the Land, health, wealth, etc. based upon their obedience, correct?

 

[brandonadams]

If faith was not a condition of the Mosaic, then what was?

Obedience to the Mosaic law (Lev 18:5; Gal 3:12). Bolton summarizes

The subservient covenant, which was called the old covenant, was that whereby God required obedience from the Israelites in respect of the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws. Blessings in the possession of Canaan were promised to obedience, and curses and miseries to those who broke the covenant, and all to this end, that God might thus encourage their hearts in the expectation of the Messiah to come...

2. They [the CoG and the Old Cov] differ in the stipulation or condition attached to each: that in the old covenant runs, ‘Do this and live’; that in the new, ‘Believe and thou shalt be saved’

Note also my several quotes from Owen to this effect in comment #30 in this thread.

 

[brandonadams]

Is this an area where there is latitude within the movement?

Yes and no. At this point the focus is on just making people aware of the view, rather than hammering out who's in and who's not. Johnson's view needs to be pressed and ironed out. It contradicts 2LBCF 19.6 insofar as it believes Moses was a) saved, and b) under the Mosaic covenant of works for eternal life. Per the most recent discussion, Johnson seems to now see this problem. That said, Keach uses language that seems to say the same thing, though he qualifies it elsewhere to affirm that only temporal life was in view. Spurgeon, following Bunyan, does seem to identify the Mosaic with the Adamic Covenant of Works https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/

For further comments on your question, see http://www.1689federalism.com/2015-founders-conference-w-commentary/

 

[brandonadams]

So that would be the CoG elements within it, but the primary premise and promise was temporal promises rooted in the Land, health, wealth, etc. based upon their obedience, correct?

Not quite what I meant.

 

[Dachaser]

Not quite what I meant.

Would you mind elaborating what you hold with on this area then?

 

[brandonadams]

From Abraham forward most of the members of the church came into it as infants showing us that God is a covenant keeping God who primarily works through families. Are we to believe that they preformed these religious acts required by God even though they didn't believe in him?

Note that you are merely assuming what is being discussed: that Abraham's offspring and members of the covenant of circumcision were the church - that the Abrahamic Covenant instituted the church. We are to believe that they were circumcised because if they were not, they would be killed (Ex 4:24) and without it they would not have God's temporal blessing.

Some outsiders or foreigners unbelievers came in through the sacrament of circumcision, this made them full
members of the church consequently they were assimilated into the tribes of Israel and treated as one born in the land in other words full Israelites. It is highly unlikely that they entered into the Covenant without any faith , i'm thinking it took a great deal of faith to undergo the procedure.

1) Again, you're assuming what is debated re: the church
2) I never denied that people had faith. I merely said that saving faith in Jesus Christ was not a condition of the Mosaic Covenant.

Biblical circumcision allowed a person entrance into the church whether young or old but faith kept you there if you did not have faith you were to be put out.

1) Again, you're assuming what is debated re: the church
2) The term you are looking for is "cut off" and that meant put to death, and that occurred for disobedience to Mosaic law. It was not the same procedure as excommunication from the church.

Rutherford makes it clear that what is required for participation in the Lord's Supper today was not required by circumcised adults in the Old Covenant. They were not put out for lack of faith. He says they were "known unbelievers" and retained every right to Old Covenant membership.

For the question is: what is it to be externally within the covenant?
It is not to see all known sins, to be a chosen people, a people taught of God [inwardly], as this argument would say.

1. For then God would not have commanded Joshua (Josh. 5) to circumcise all Israel because their fathers were externally within the covenant.

2. For their fathers were a generation of unbelievers who knew not God, who tempted Him, grieved his holy Spirit in the wilderness, and professed themselves by their murmuring never to be truly within the covenant [inwardly].
Then to profess the doctrine of the covenant is but to be born Jews, avow the Lord in external profession and swear a covenant with Him (Deut. 29), [even] when the heart is blinded and hardened (Deut. 29:4). And so by this it is clear that Joshua had commandment of God to give the seal of the covenant to their children, who [the parents] were as openly wicked against the Lord, as murderers, drunkards, swearers, etc.
[...]
1. The children of the most wicked were circumcised (Josh. 5:2 [see also verses 6-7]). We desire to know whom God forbade to be circumcised that were carnally descended of Abraham? Or show us example or precept thereof in the Word.

2. What God required in the parents, whose infants the church might lawfully and without sin circumcise, was that they were born Jews. O, says Mr. Best, they were behooved [required] to be members of the church, whose infants might lawfully be circumcised. I answer: that is ignotum per ignotius [unknown per the unknown]. Show me one person being a born Jew whose child the Lord forbid to circumcise?

3. What is it to be a member of the Jewish Church? Is it to be a visible saint and taught of God [inwardly]? I [admit this to be] true: that was required indeed to make men acceptable before God. But to make one a visible member of the visible Jewish church, nothing was required but to be a born Jew, profess God’s truth, and keep from external ceremonial pollutions.

http://reformedbooksonline.com/exclusive-books-to-rbo/on-the-baptism-of-the-children-of-adherents/

 

[brandonadams]

Would you mind elaborating what you hold with on this area then?

I would recommend reading Pascal Denault's book first.

 

[Dachaser]

I would recommend reading Pascal Denault's book first.

Were you from the start a Reformed Baptist, or did you come into that position from more of a non confessional Baptist position?

 

[BG]

Brandon, I am not assuming anything I am simply stating the facts, Faith was a requirement to remain in the covenant in the Old Testament, just Because the church leaders in the old testament were derelict in their duty to excommunicate people does not negate the fact that that was clearly their duty. By the way you do know the position you're taking is placing you at the heart of dispensational theology... just saying

 

[KMK]

Brandon, it sounds like you are saying that the condition of the Mosaic was bare obedience without faith or that which flows from faith like glory and thanksgiving. Is that correct?

Do you disagree with Thomas Boston when he writes...

"All true obedience to the ten commandments now must run in the channel of the covenant of grace, being directed to God as our God in that covenant, Deuteronomy 28:58 . This is to fear that glorious and fearful name, The Lord thy God . And so legal obedience is no obedience at all. This obedience is performed not for righteousness, but to testify our love to the Lord our Righteousness; not in our own strength, but in that of our Lord God and Redeemer; not to be accepted for its own worth, but for the sake of a Redeemer's merits; not out of fear of hell, or hope to purchase heaven, but out of love and gratitude to him who has delivered us from hell, and purchased heaven and everlasting happiness for us." Works, Vol. 2, On the Preface to the 10 Commandments

Is this true for those only in the New Covenant but not in the Mosaic? If so, how do you explain the many times God rebukes Israel for obedience without faith?

I appologize if you have answered this question before, but there are several threads floating around and it is hard to keep up.

 

[brandonadams]

Were you from the start a Reformed Baptist, or did you come into that position from more of a non confessional Baptist position?

I was raised non-denominational but was saved in college in a confessional baptist church.

 

[brandonadams]

Brandon, I am not assuming anything I am simply stating the facts, Faith was a requirement to remain in the covenant in the Old Testament, just Because the church leaders in the old testament were derelict in their duty to excommunicate people does not negate the fact that that was clearly their duty.

Please see my previous response, particularly the quote from Rutherford.

By the way you do know the position you're taking is placing you at the heart of dispensational theology... just saying

No, that is incorrect. Please see previous thread on that point.

 

[brandonadams]

Brandon, it sounds like you are saying that the condition of the Mosaic was bare obedience without faith or that which flows from faith like glory and thanksgiving. Is that correct?

Outward obedience to the Mosaic law is what the Mosaic blessings and curses were conditioned upon. That obedience often flowed from a regenerate heart, but not always. (Consider the Israelites in Egypt who obeyed by sacrificing the paschal lamb, and thereby escaped death, and yet died in the wilderness for lack of faith & obedience). Regarding Boston's quote, keep in mind that the Mosaic covenant was a typological overlay that function over the top of the underlying Adamic Covenant of Works and New Covenant of Grace. So every Israelite, as an image bearer, was required to obey the law perfectly, though the terms of the Mosaic law were less demanding. See comment #11 above for a quote from Pink & Scott to this effect https://puritanboard.com/threads/fa...on-of-the-mosaic-covenant.93271/#post-1137740

I would encourage you to read John Erskine's essay on this question: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/john-erskines-the-nature-the-sinai-covenant/

 

[brandonadams]

Would you mind elaborating what you hold with on this area then?

As mentioned, I would really recommend reading Denault to grasp the overall concept. But I suppose I can briefly say, with regards to graciousness as it relates to the Mosaic Covenant:

1) Even though the Adamic Covenant was a Covenant of Works, God may be considered "gracious" to have offered Adam the reward of eternal life for obedience that he already owed (WCF/2LBCF 7.1). In a similar way, God could be considered gracious in revealing himself to Israel and dwelling in their midst, etc. Yet the covenant was still a covenant of works.

2) God was gracious in redeeming Israel out of Egypt. However, this was not, strictly speaking, a gracious blessing of the Mosaic Covenant. Rather, it was a blessing earned by Abraham's obedience. God's promise to Abraham made God longsuffering towards Israel. He did not pour out the full covenant curse until Christ came. So in this sense he was gracious.

3) The Mosaic Covenant did not demand perfect obedience like the Adamic Covenant. There was provision within the covenant to repair the relationship (the ceremonial system). In this sense God was gracious (note, however, that it was still the work of earthly priests, not Christ - see Hebrews).

 

[BG]

Brandon the fact that you say something is not true does not make it so.
Do you even hear what you're saying in some of these post: they were to outwardly love God with their whole heart outwardly, just fake it, it just doesn't make sense .
How could a Holy and righteous God enter into a Covenant with sinful and rebellious man. If they were expected to obey God then why aren't they still in Egypt ?

 

[Pergamum]

Brandon, it sounds like you are saying that the condition of the Mosaic was bare obedience without faith or that which flows from faith like glory and thanksgiving. Is that correct?

Do you disagree with Thomas Boston when he writes...

"All true obedience to the ten commandments now must run in the channel of the covenant of grace, being directed to God as our God in that covenant, Deuteronomy 28:58 . This is to fear that glorious and fearful name, The Lord thy God . And so legal obedience is no obedience at all. This obedience is performed not for righteousness, but to testify our love to the Lord our Righteousness; not in our own strength, but in that of our Lord God and Redeemer; not to be accepted for its own worth, but for the sake of a Redeemer's merits; not out of fear of hell, or hope to purchase heaven, but out of love and gratitude to him who has delivered us from hell, and purchased heaven and everlasting happiness for us." Works, Vol. 2, On the Preface to the 10 Commandments

Is this true for those only in the New Covenant but not in the Mosaic? If so, how do you explain the many times God rebukes Israel for obedience without faith?

I appologize if you have answered this question before, but there are several threads floating around and it is hard to keep up.

Ken,

Can you list some of those many times that the Lord rebukes Israel for obedience without faith?