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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Rutherford argues that circumcised adults in the Old Testament are the same as baptized adults in the NT. Hence, children born in the visible church of wicked parents are to be baptized because children born of wicked circumcised adults were to be circumcised. His "known unbelievers" in the quoted section is referring to those in the NT who are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. Rutherford elsewhere argues in Due Right of Presbyteries that the right partaking of the Passover required the same self-examination that is required in the Lord's Supper, including heart preparation.
 
Can you list some of those many times that the Lord rebukes Israel for obedience without faith?
Isaiah 29:13 "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:"

And, related to that, an example of unbelief producing wickedness...(they could not enter into the land because of unbelief, according to Hebrews 3)

Psalm 106:24-25 "Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word: But murmured in their tents, and hearkened not unto the voice of the Lord."
 
Last edited:
Sticking with Isaiah from above:

Isa 1:10-14; 19
Isa 7:9
Isa 66:3

What about Deut 28:15? 'Hearken' means to 'hear' AND 'obey'.

Ken,

Can you list some of those many times that the Lord rebukes Israel for obedience without faith?
 
Brandon the fact that you say something is not true does not make it so.

Right back at you, brother.

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 .

First, that is a caricature of the position. Second, I have quoted numerous reformed paedobaptists making these same points, which you are conveniently ignoring.

How could a Holy and righteous God enter into a Covenant with sinful and rebellious man.

Good question. Why don't you ask the reformed paedobaptists who share my position? Or are they Dispensationalists too just because you disagree and don't understand them? See https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/10/01/a-post-fall-covenant-of-works/
 
Rutherford argues that circumcised adults in the Old Testament are the same as baptized adults in the NT. Hence, children born in the visible church of wicked parents are to be baptized because children born of wicked circumcised adults were to be circumcised. His "known unbelievers" in the quoted section is referring to those in the NT who are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. Rutherford elsewhere argues in Due Right of Presbyteries that the right partaking of the Passover required the same self-examination that is required in the Lord's Supper, including heart preparation.

Thank you. I am aware. None of this changes anything I have said.
 
I haven't been on this forum in a long time. I peaked in and noticed that there were a lot of questions about 1689 Federalism that could use some clarification. I believe I have provided that clarification and provided you all with many resources for further study if you are interested. I will be bowing out at this point due to time constraints and because I believe the answers to questions/challenges that are being repeated are available for those interested. In addition to the various links I have provided, please see also the topical list here: http://contrast2.wordpress.com

In Christ,
 
I haven't been on this forum in a long time. I peaked in and noticed that there were a lot of questions about 1689 Federalism that could use some clarification. I believe I have provided that clarification and provided you all with many resources for further study if you are interested. I will be bowing out at this point due to time constraints and because I believe the answers to questions/challenges that are being repeated are available for those interested. In addition to the various links I have provided, please see also the topical list here: http://contrast2.wordpress.com

In Christ,
Thank you for your answers. They are much appreciated. I am now reading your website quite a bit.
 
Brandon anyone who believes that Israel and the church are two different things is a dispensationalist Whether they are Presbyterian or Baptist it does not matter that's dispensationalism
 
Another good example of faith being required is in the fifth chapter of the book of Joshua because of unbelief God would not allow the children of Israel to circumcise their children in the wilderness they had no faith therefore they had no right to circumcise their children. God waited for all the unbelievers to die off so that the land would not be polluted, then had Joshua preform believers circumcision.
 
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 ?
God could do that due to the fact that in His mind, the Cross was already an accomplished fact, so He was able to deal with them on the "credit" that was to yet be purchased on their behalf at the Cross of Christ.
 
Brandon anyone who believes that Israel and the church are two different things is a dispensationalist Whether they are Presbyterian or Baptist it does not matter that's dispensationalism
The question is really when does one see the actual Church being instituted by God, back in the wilderness, or on the Day of Pentecost.
 
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).
You would be bringing into point 3 the Hebrews passage concerning the OT sacrifices were bit shadows/types of the final sacrifice made for sins by Jesus on the Cross, correct?
 
Moderating:
A reminder.
"Before you send the latest jab, punch, tweak, etc into cyberspace, take a minute (or two, or five) to make sure that you are doing so in a spirit of Christian maturity (cf. #4 below). Study first, pray, post after."
https://www.puritanboard.com/help/terms
When venturing into the forums go through the following sort of pilot checklist before you weigh in:

1. Will it edify or significantly inform a useful conversation (Mark 12:29–31; 1 Cor. 14:26)?

2. Will it be easily misunderstood (John 13:7; 16:12)?

3. Will it reach the right audience (Mark 4:9)?

4. Will it help your evangelism (Col. 1:28–29)?

5. Will it bring about unnecessary and unhelpful controversy (Titus 3:9)?

6. Will it embarrass or offend (1 Cor. 12:21–26)?

7. Will it convey care (1 Cor. 12:21–26)?

8. Will it make people better appreciate someone else (1 Cor. 12:21–26)?

9. Is it boasting (Prov. 27:2)?

10. Is the tone appropriate (2 John 1, 12; Col. 4:6; Eph. 4:29; 2 Tim. 2:24–25)?

11. Is it wrong to say nothing (Rom. 1:14)?

12. What do others advise (Prov. 11:14; 15:22; 24:6)?

See also:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...derator-rules-of-behavior.93287/#post-1137921

 
An interesting quotation of Turretin (from https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/re-publication-covenant-of-works-question.49840/#post-640989)


"To say that this covenant subserved the covenant of grace is really to say that it is not a covenant, but a dispensation. A covenant properly so called has the power of binding by itself the contracting parties, nor is it directed to another. If therefore that dispensation had respect to another (as it really did), it is a proof that it was not a different covenant in species, but only a different mode of economy, adapted to the time, place and state of the persons. XII.XII.XVII"
 
Obedience to the Mosaic law (Lev 18:5; Gal 3:12).

I agree with this. I wrote earlier (in another thread perhaps?) that faith is implied in the Mosaic Law, but it is not a condition. Obedience to the Mosaic Law could have been motivated by faith, but not necessarily.
 
I agree with this. I wrote earlier (in another thread perhaps?) that faith is implied in the Mosaic Law, but it is not a condition. Obedience to the Mosaic Law could have been motivated by faith, but not necessarily.
If obedience and not faith was the condition, what about those verses that say that Israel confesses with their lips but their heart is far from Me. The condition of the heart seemed vital even in the OT.
 
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

BG, I am in agreement with Brandon that faith was not a requirement to remain in covenant (i.e. part of the covenant community) in the Old Testament. Faith was required for the new birth under the Old Covenant, just as it is under the New Covenant, but one could be a member of the Old Covenant community (and follow its commands) without having faith. The Levitical priests had no way of knowing for certain if an individual was of faith, unless you are making a distinction between saving faith and another type of faith (which I do not believe the Bible teaches).
 
If obedience and not faith was the condition, what about those verses that say that Israel confesses with their lips but their heart is far from Me. The condition of the heart seemed vital even in the OT.
Perg, my point is that an Israelite could follow the outward requirements of the Law (obedience), but do so for pragmatic reasons, not because they possessed faith. Indeed, Isaiah 29:13 seems to support this:

Isaiah 29:13 Then the Lord said,“Because this people draw near with their wordsAnd honor Me with their lip service,But they remove their hearts far from Me,And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,

Their reverence (or outward conformity) was not because of a regenerate heart, but because of tradition, and also societal reasons. The threat of being cut off from the covenant community was a strong deterrent.
 
BG, I am in agreement with Brandon that faith was not a requirement to remain in covenant (i.e. part of the covenant community) in the Old Testament. Faith was required for the new birth under the Old Covenant, just as it is under the New Covenant, but one could be a member of the Old Covenant community (and follow its commands) without having faith. The Levitical priests had no way of knowing for certain if an individual was of faith, unless you are making a distinction between saving faith and another type of faith (which I do not believe the Bible teaches).

Herald, would you say that one of the requirements of the OT was that they keep the Ten Commandments?
 
Herald, would you say that one of the requirements of the OT was that they keep the Ten Commandments?
Of course. How do you think the average Jew did in keeping them? I think the answer is found in the eventual destruction of Israel and Judah. The curse of the Law (Deut. 28) was on full display.

Now, I have said earlier that faith was implied in the Law, but it was not a requirement of it. The word of our Lord has some application here:

Matthew 7:13-14 13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

The majority of people lack faith. It was no different during the Old Testament than it is today. Knowing that there are none righteous, faith was lacking from most people during the time of the Law.
 
BG, I am in agreement with Brandon that faith was not a requirement to remain in covenant (i.e. part of the covenant community) in the Old Testament. Faith was required for the new birth under the Old Covenant, just as it is under the New Covenant, but one could be a member of the Old Covenant community (and follow its commands) without having faith. The Levitical priests had no way of knowing for certain if an individual was of faith, unless you are making a distinction between saving faith and another type of faith (which I do not believe the Bible teaches).
If they did not have faith they were not "true Israel" according to Paul in Romans 9 and Galatians 3 right? They were missing the point of God's dealings with them.

Also, obeying the Ten Commandments necessitates faith, right?
 
If they did not have faith they were not "true Israel" according to Paul in Romans 9 and Galatians 3 right? They were missing the point of God's dealings with them.

Correct.

Pergamum said:
Also, obeying the Ten Commandments necessitates faith, right?

Truly keeping them (to the extent that any child of God can do so)? Yes. But how many Jews gave the Decalogue lip service?
 
If the Ten Commandments were a requirement why is it God did not bring judgment upon them one minute later, in light of the fact that there is non righteous no not one, no one except Christ has ever kept the Ten Commandments? What was it about these sinful people that made God love and favor them so much? If God is holy and hates sin why were they the apple of his eye. How could God view them as holy and righteous? I think that saying that faith was not a requirement for membership in the old administration of the CoG leaves us with more questions than answers. I have a feeling we will need to rethink a lot of passages the we previously thought were Calvinistic if we view the ot requirement as a bare naked obedience with indifference to and even possibly a loathing of the God and the laws that they had to obey. I'm a little surprised by a theology that says the church in the ot .did not believe in God but was just fearful that the civil magistrate would put them to death. They did not believe in God but still tryed to obey, I'm sorry it just seems odd to me and unbiblical.
 
Are you distinguishing the OC with the NC in this regard? If so, are you implying that ministers can know a man intrinsically in the NC?
Andrew, no. I am saying that the Levitical priests had no way of distinguishing between a Jew who kept the outward observance of the Law for pragmatic reasons from a Jew who kept it because of faith. My whole point is that the Mosaic Law was not conditioned by faith on the part of the one observing it. All Jews were obligated to keep the Law, regardless of whether they were true believers or not.
 
BG, I am in agreement with Brandon that faith was not a requirement to remain in covenant (i.e. part of the covenant community) in the Old Testament.

I can see your point. But, what about commands like Deut 13:4, "Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him." Are you saying this was never an OT Command at all? It was always a NC 'implication'?
 
BG said:
If the Ten Commandments were a requirement why is it God did not bring judgment upon them one minute later, in light of the fact that there is non righteous no not one, no one except Christ has ever kept the Ten Commandments? What was it about these sinful people that made God love and favor them so much? If God is holy and hates sin why were they the apple of his eye. How could God view them as holy and righteous? I think that saying that faith was not a requirement for membership in the old administration of the CoG leaves us with more questions than answers. I have a feeling we will need to rethink a lot of passages the we previously thought were Calvinistic if we view the ot requirement as a bare naked obedience with indifference to and even possibly a loathing of the God and the laws that they had to obey. I'm a little surprised by a theology that says the church in the ot .did not believe in God but was just fearful that the civil magistrate would put them to death. They did not believe in God but still tryed to obey, I'm sorry it just seems odd to me and unbiblical.

BG, please read my words in a more charitable light. I have said more than once that faith is implied in the Mosaic Law, but it is not a condition of it. I will come back to this in a moment.

I do not believe there is anything about the people of the nation of Israel that obligated God to lavish them with his love, mercy, and grace. How often did they turn their back on God (c.f. Jer. 2:13)? How often did God overlook their sin and restore them after they repented? When God did forgive and restore them, it was not based on the repentance of any one individual; instead it was a forgiveness and restoration based on the corporate repentance of the nation (2 Chr. 7:14). I will gladly confess that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Unfortunately the Mosaic Law, and the Old Covenant in general, made many of its blessings contingent on corporate obedience by the nation of Israel. That obedience was lacking. Why was it lacking? I think you and I will agree that it was because of lack of circumcised hearts. Eventually this lead to the dissolution of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms.

If I am reading your words correctly, you give the impression that most Jews of the time were true believers. In light of the many failings of the people (followed by God's chastening), where was this wholesale faith that allowed them to keep the Law? The truth is that the people failed miserably in keeping the Law, and suffered miserably because of it. Of course, no one could keep the Law perfectly, even if they having saving faith. The Law was holy, but it was unable to be kept perfectly. God knew this when He gave it Moses, and Moses certainly knew it when he delivered it to the people. Things became a lot clearer under the New Covenant when God's blessings on His covenant people became contingent on faith. Faith is no longer implied, it is required.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top