My Position on Covenant Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.

VanVos

Puritan Board Sophomore
It seems that it's been a while since we have had a good theological discussion on Covenant Theology. So I thought I'd take this opportunity to concisely present my position. I would really appreciate feed back from both paedo and credo alike.

I believe in the Covenant Redemption that was made in eternity past between God the Father and God the Son to elect certain sinners to salvation. This covenant on part of God the Son was conditional. (John 6:37-40, 17:2, Heb 10:5-10)

I believe in the Covenant of Works that was made in Eden between God and Adam, which promised eschatological glory for Adam and his descendents. This covenant on the part of Adam as the federal head over humanity was conditional. (Rom 5:12-21, I Cor 15:45-47 Hosea 6:7)

I believe in the one Covenant of Grace in the following administrations through out redemptive history that served the purpose of the Covenant of redemption (Eph 2:12)

I believe in the Adamic Covenant that was made between God and Adam after the fall, which promised that the seed of the women would destroy the work Satan and accomplish redemption for the elect. This covenant on the part of elect sinner is unconditional. (Gen 3:15)

I believe in the Noahic Covenant that was made between God and Noah after the flood, which promised that Noah and his descendents that God would never wipe out mankind by a worldwide flood again. This Covenant on the part of Noah descendents is unconditional. (Gen 9:8-17)

I believe in the Abrahamic Covenant that was made in Mesopotamia between God and Abraham that promised that in Abraham´s seed all the nations would be blessed. This covenant on the part of Abraham was unconditional. (Gen 12:3, Gal 3:8)

I believe in the Sinaitic Covenant that was made in wilderness between the God and the Nation Israel that promised God's people prosperity as the Kingdom of God on earth. This covenant on the part of Israel was conditional. (Deut 28:1-2)

I believe in the Davidic Covenant that was made in Jerusalem between God and King David that promised that one his descendents (the promised seed) would forever establish the Kingdom of God. This covenant of the part of David was unconditional. (2 Sam 7:14-16)

I believe in the New Covenant that was made in the upper room between Christ and the elect sinner that promised redemption and eschatological glory. This covenant on the part of the elect is unconditional. (Heb 8:6-13, Heb 2:9-11)

Christ, as the Second Adam and the promise seed, fulfilled both the Covenant of Works and the Covenants of Promise (2 Cor 1:20, Eph 2:12, Gal 3:16,29)

VanVos




[Edited on 3-31-2005 by VanVos]
 
Originally posted by VanVos
I believe in the Sinaitic that was made in wilderness between the God and the Nation Israel that promised God's people prosperity as the Kingdom of God on earth. This covenant on the part of Israel was conditional. (Deut 28:1-2)

I would agree with you except on this point, and even here I think it is a small disagreement, that would perhaps disappear if you spent more time explaining your understanding of it. The typical blessings of Sinai were certainly conditional, but not the spiritual. The covenant as Sinai was clearly a renewal of the same covenant with Abraham, though with much more instructional "scaffolding" with it, to teach them of the coming promised seed of Abraham, the true Prophet, whom Moses prefigured. Salvation , even at Sinai, was by grace alone. Notice the law was given to them after they were redeemed from Egypt.

I also think you need to define what you mean by conditional and unconditional. Certainly the covenant of grace is unconditional in the sense that what God requires of us, God provides. But it is still conditional in the fact that this relationship is bilateral. We are called to respond in faith and obedience to the grace given us in the covenant. We have been created and redeemed to fellowship with God.

[Edited on 3-28-2005 by puritansailor]
 
Very good post, Jonathan. I agree with Patrick's above summary. To carry the discussion a bit further, how does this affect your view on Baptism?
 
Thanks Partrick for your feedback, here are some terms more clearly defined.

Conditional = meritorious work is required by the covenant recipient.
Unconditional = meritorious work done by the author of the covenant.

Unconditional covenants and it's benefits are received by faith, not by works. This faith is placed in the promise that author of the covenant will fulfill the work required in the covenant.

I would also add that Siniatic Covenant was only conditional for Israel as a nation. As individuals this covenant acted as a schoolmaster to bring them to the promise seed of both the Adamic and Abrahamic Covenants (Gal 3:22-26).

VanVos

P.S. Is the anyway I can move this topic to the Covenant Theology forum?
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Very good post, Jonathan. I agree with Patrick's above summary. To carry the discussion a bit further, how does this affect your view on Baptism?

Christ, as the Second Adam and the promise seed, fulfilled both the Covenant of Works and the Covenants of Promise (2 Cor 1:20, Eph 2:12, Gal 3:16,29). Since Christ (the promised seed fulfills) the covenants of promise we are now at point in redemptive history where there is no longer any genelogical covenants. Therefore the New Covenant only consist of those who have the faith Gal 3:28-29 of Abraham. Therefore I would argue that we only baptise those who profess faith in the promised seed, which Chirst. I know that is incredibly brief, so I will be happy expound on what I mean if you like.

VanVos

[Edited on 3-28-2005 by VanVos]
 
I guess I'd have to see how you apply it, Jonathan. After all, theology that isn't lived isn't really theology. So how is this practiced in your life? I mean, ideally; not trying to flesh out our failings, but how do intend to live this view of the covenant? For example, who's in and who's out? Was Manasseh in the Davidic Covenant? How does that impact how we view the ramifications of the Redemptive Covenant? And how does that bear on the people in our churches? Etc., Etc.
 
Christ, as the Second Adam and the promise seed, fulfilled both the Covenant of Works and the Covenants of Promise

What do you mean by Christ "fulfilled" the Covenants of Promise? You are using the term "fulfilled" as if he did away with the elements it involved, such as circumcision (which was a spiritual act). The Abrahamic promise is only referred to as a single covenant throughout Scripture, not a national and spiritual covenant. We Gentiles were grafted into the covenant, the New Covenant is not a brand new, never-before-understood covenant, it is just a more glorious outward administration of the same Covenant of Grace:

Eph 2:11  Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "œthe uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands"” 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit"”just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call"” 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.


The New Covenant is not a new tree with different spiritual substance and membership, but we are grafted into the one, single covenantal tree of God's grace (Rom 11). There is no passage in the NT that indicates a radical change in covenantal membership, as changing the significance of the sacraments (baptism/communion) would require. If children were included in the covenants of promise, and we Gentiles have now been grafted into the covenants of promise, children are still included. This principle is not only never repealed in the NT, but is only affirmed (1 Cor 7:14; Acts 2:38-39).

The most important thing to keep in mind about the Covenant of Grace is its makeup and the dual nature of it. For that, I will paraphrase some Berkhof (with a few minor additions by myself), to be most clear:

The Covenant of Grace (CoG) is the promise of God to save His people for His glory. This covenant has been expressed in various ways and under varying administrations throughout redemptive history. It was first made in the Garden of Eden with Adam & Eve post-Fall, with the promise of a seed that would crush Satan and a hope of forgiveness of sins (Gen 3:15). It was renewed with Abraham, Moses, and David, and was finally culminated and fulfilled in Jesus Christ through the New Covenant.

The CoG is, first and foremost, based on God's promise alone. We find this discussed in the same manner throughout Scripture in the basic phraseology of "I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee" (Gen 17:7; Jer 31:33; 32:38-40; Ezek 34:23-25,30,31; 36:25-28; 37:26,27; 2 Cor 6:16-18; Heb 8:10). This one covenantal promise contains several promises within itself, such as various temporal blessings (often symbolizing spiritual ones), promise of justification and a claim to eternal life, and the promise of the Spirit of God to apply redemption and the blessings of salvation (cf. Job 19:25-27; Psa 16:11; 73:24-26; Isa 43:25; Jer 31:33,34; Ezek 36:27; Dan 12:2,3; Gal 4:5,6; Tit 3:7; Heb 11:7; Jas 2:5).

Secondly, there is also involved the response of man to God's covenant initiation. Men must truly and faithfully be involved in the covenant relationship. Men must respond to God's promise "I will be thy God" with "I will be among thy people." Men must also respond with saving faith in Jesus Christ, the promised seed of Abraham, laying hold to their justification, forgiveness of sins, adoption, and eternal life, through the power of God's Spirit alone.

There are several aspects of the CoG we must also understand. First, it is a gracious covenant, because in it God allows Christ to be our surety in our stead, doing what we could never do. Second, it is a trinitarian covenant, as all of the Godhead is involved in a special way to operate the covanental promise (John 1:16; Eph 1:1-14; 2:8; 1 Pet 1:2). Third, it is an eternal (Gen 17:19; 2 Sam 23:5; Heb 13:20) and unbreakable (Heb 9:17) covenant, as God will forever remain true to His covanental promises (however, this does not mean that man cannot or will not break the relationship in which he stands). Fourth, it is a particular and not universal covenant, seeing as how it is not to be realized in all men as universalists would believe. To those whom the gospel is preached, the blessings of the covenant are not guaranteed. Fifthly, it is the same covenant in all dispensations spiritually, though its form of administration changes.

The summary expression of the covenant is the same throughout history (both the Old and New Testaments); that is "I will be thy God" (Gen 17:7; Ex 19:5; 20:1; Deut 29:13; 2 Sam 7:14; Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10).

The Bible teaches that there is only one gospel by which men can be saved, helping us understand clearly that there is but one covenant of promise for eternal life (Gal 3:8).

Paul argues at length against Judaizers in proving that the Abrahamic promise is clearly still in place and has not changed one bit (Rom 4:9-25; Gal 3:7-9,17,18, cf. Heb 6:13-18).

The Mediator of the covenant has always been the same, and always will be the same (Heb 13:8) and there is no salvation apart from Christ (Jn 14:6; Acts 4:12). Abraham was saved by Christ just as we are (Gal 3:16-29), and we are heirs according to promise, being in Christ.

The way of salvation in the covenant has always been the same, with identical conditions all along (Gen 15:6 compared with Rom 4:11; Heb 2:4; Acts 15:11; Gal 3:6,7; Heb 11:9).

The promises to believers have remained the same (Gen 15:6; Ps 51:12; Matt 13:17; Jn 8:56).

The sacraments, although differing in form, have essentially the same signification in both dispensations (Rom 4:11; 1 Cor 5:7; Col 2:11,12).

Finally, the covenant has always been both conditional and unconditional. It is conditional because the Bible clearly teaches that entrance into the covenant is conditioned on faith (Jn 3:16,36; Rom 10:9), Scripture gives serious threats and warnings to those who would break the covenant with God (against apostasy), and finally, if there were no conditions, it would not be a covenant. God would be in covenant with Himself and man would have no part in it. It is unconditional because the very conditions in which a man can enter the covenant with Christ as their surety is based on God and the work of His Spirit alone.

We must also understand that the CoG has a dual aspect to it. Many have tried to explain this in various ways (such as an "external and internal" covenant), but the only way that it is justified in Scripture is to understand it as both a legal relationship and a communion of life. A covenant can be regarded as an agreement between two parties, with mutual conditions and stipulations, and therefore as something in the legal sphere. The covenant may exist even when nothing is done to realize its purpose, namely the condition to which it points and for which it calls as the real ideal. The parties that live under this agreement are in the covenant, since they are subject to the mutual stipulations agreed upon. In the legal sphere, everything is considered and regulated in a purely objective way.

When thinking of the covenant as an objective, legal relationship, its proper membership is believers and their children, as that is to whom the promise is made throughout Scripture (and this decree of God has never been repealed explicitly nor implicitly; in fact, the NT does much to confirm this reality).

When thinking of the covenant as a communion of life, its proper membership is the elect alone; that is, regenerate people who are given saving faith by God.

As a legal relationship, the CoG contains both professing adults and the children of believers.

For adults, they can only enter the membership of the covenant through a profession of faith. Although a profession of faith is enough to accept an adult into the CoG legally speaking, only with a saving faith (that is the gift of God) are they brought into the covenant both legally and spiritually, as a communion of life.

For the children of believers, they enter the covenant as a legal relationship through birth. This does not, in any way, guarantee that they will enjoy a communion of life with God through their covenant membership. However, it must be reasonably assumed through Scripture that the children of believers have a high probability of eventually showing fruit of saving faith within the covenant as a communion of life. This assurance is based on the promise of God. As long as children of the covenant do not prove otherwise, we are to proceed on the assumption that they are in possession of the covenant life, according to God's promise. Not all children of believers will continue in the covenant in a living way, and we must remember the words of Paul in Rom 9:6-8 that "Not all of Israel is truly Israel."

In emphasizing the significance of the covenant as a means to an end, we should not stress exclusively, nor even primarily, the demands of God and the resulting duty of man, but especially the promise of the effectual operation of the grace of God in the hearts of covenant children. If we stress the covenant responsibilities only or excessively, and fail to give due prominence to the fact that in the covenant God gives whatsoever He demands of us, in other words, that His promises cover all His requirements, we are in danger of falling into the snare of Arminianism.

Hope this helps shed some light on the nature of the CoG and covenants in general. Grace and peace.
 
Originally posted by JohnV
I guess I'd have to see how you apply it, Jonathan. After all, theology that isn't lived isn't really theology. So how is this practiced in your life? I mean, ideally; not trying to flesh out our failings, but how do intend to live this view of the covenant? For example, who's in and who's out? Was Manasseh in the Davidic Covenant? How does that impact how we view the ramifications of the Redemptive Covenant? And how does that bear on the people in our churches? Etc., Etc.

I think that my position is as Christocentric as possible. This is where all redemptive theology must point to. The more Christocentric our covenant theology is the more healthy God's people will be. I'm over generalizing here but I think that this shows the importance of Covenant Theology. Yes I believe Christ was in the Davidic Covenant because He is the promised seed.

VanVos
 
Originally posted by VanVosI think that my position is as Christocentric as possible. This is where all redemptive theology must point to. The more Christocentric our covenant theology is the more healthy God's people will be. I'm over generalizing here but I think that this shows the importance of Covenant Theology. Yes I believe Christ was in the Davidic Covenant because He is the promised seed.

Something more for you to consider. Every covenant before the NT included children in the promise, even the New Covenant as prophecied by Jeremiah (31,32). Even though promise was only realized in the elect (i.e. Isaac, Jacob, etc.) it was still historically administered through families. God has always been a God of families, not just with Abraham and Moses, but as far back as Noah and Adam, and so predicted in Jeremiah and Malachi too. Faith has always been the instrument to enjoy the promises of salvation in the covenant as Abraham illustrates, even before he was circumcised. Yet the historical outworking of this covenant with Abraham included his family. The covenant made with Abraham AND his descendents was an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17). Why would this pattern of the historical administration of the covenant change in the New Testament? And if it did change, where is the Scriptural evidence for such a radical change to no longer include families?
 
Good links pastorway, thanks.

In regards to the question about the inclusion of non-elect person in the New Covenant i.e. a child of the believing parents. I would argue that this is not a constituent part of the New Covenant. The book of Hebrews in Chapters 8-10 speaks of the inviolability (Heb 8:9) and the exclusivity (Heb 8:10-11) of the New Covenant. In the New Covenant the number of elect persons and those who know the Lord is a co-equal number. Therefore I conclude that The New Covenant consist only of the elect. We are now at a point in redemptive history where the promise seed has come in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Only those in him make up the covenant community.

In regards to Romans 11 I would say the true Vine is Christ John 15: 1-7 not Israel since Christ fulfilled what Israel failed to do (typologically). All elect persons from all ages are engrafted into Christ not the old Covenant community of ethnic Israel.

VanVos




[Edited on 3-29-2005 by VanVos]
 
Originally posted by VanVos
In regards to the question about the inclusion of non-elect person in the New Covenant i.e. a child of the believing parents. I would argue that this is not a constituent part of the New Covenant.
The Prophets may disagree with your understanding of the New Covenant.
Jer. 32
37Behold, I will gather them out of all countries where I have driven them in My anger, in My fury, and in great wrath; I will bring them back to this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely. 38They shall be My people, and I will be their God; 39then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. 40And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.

Mal. 4
6And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse."

Isaiah 65

17"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.
18But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing,
And her people a joy.
19I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
And joy in My people;
The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her,
Nor the voice of crying.
20"No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
21They shall build houses and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22They shall not build and another inhabit;
They shall not plant and another eat;
For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people,
And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23They shall not labor in vain,
Nor bring forth children for trouble;
For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD,
And their offspring with them.


The book of Hebrews in Chapters 8-10 speaks of the inviolability (Heb 8:9) and the exclusivity (Heb 8:10-11) of the New Covenant. In the New Covenant the number of elect persons and those who know the Lord is a co-equal number. Therefore I conclude that The New Covenant consist only of the elect. We are now at a point in redemptive history where the promise seed has come in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Only those in him make up the covenant community.
This has always been the case that only the elect are saved though. Abraham was plainly told this. Isaac was chosen and Ishmael rejected. Jacob was chosen and Esau rejected. But that didn't stop Abraham from including him the historical administration of the covenant of grace. Romans 9 makes that clear, as well as the remnant ideas taught by the prophets, which Paul bases Romans 9 on. But the consistent truth of election did not change the historical administration of that covenant through families. And as shown above, that same pattern is repeated in the prophecies of the New Covenant.

The pattern is consistent with all the covenants. They are made with families and they are everlasting.
Noah Gen. 9:9
Abraham Gen. 12:3, 17:7 "Interesting that all the "families" of the world shall be blessed)
Isaac Gen. 26:3-5
Jacob Gen. 28:4
Moses, verses a plenty, but note Ex. 12 with the Passover institution, an everlasting ordinance celebrated in the family.
David 2 Sam. 7:12-16, 1 Kings 2:1-4 (also interesting how David understood the historical application of his covenant to his descendents despite the obvious fact that his office pointed to Christ)
Also the prophets above.
You already know the NT references I'm sure which certainly would indicate a continuation of this understanding of the historical administration of the covenant despite the continued teaching of only the children of promise being saved. Acts 2:39, 16:31.

And one question I would really like you to flesh out. How does Christ fulfilling the types and shadows of the OT promises change the historical family orientation of the covenant? How was the family structure a type which Christ fulfilled? What was it a type of? What would be the family's anti-type?



In regards to Romans 11 I would say the true Vine is Christ John 15: 1-7 not Israel since Christ fulfilled what Israel failed to do (typologically). All elect persons from all ages are engrafted into Christ not the old Covenant community of ethnic Israel.

Paul doesn't talk about a vine here but an olive tree. And he speaks of the Gentiles being grafted in "among them," them being ethnic Israel, the visible people of God. So certianly Christ is the true vine, but Paul isn't talking about that concept in Romans 11.

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by puritansailor]
 
In regards to the question about the inclusion of non-elect person in the New Covenant i.e. a child of the believing parents. I would argue that this is not a constituent part of the New Covenant. [/quote]
The Prophets may disagree with your understanding of the New Covenant.
Jer. 32
37Behold, I will gather them out of all countries where I have driven them in My anger, in My fury, and in great wrath; I will bring them back to this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely. 38They shall be My people, and I will be their God; 39then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. 40And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me. [/quote]

But that's not how Jeremiah 31 is used in Hebrews 8. The prophesy is more clearly explained in Hebrews 8. We have allow the New Testament to interpret the Old (and I'm saying you don't). e.g. Micah 4:1-3 is fulfilled spiritual in Hebrews 12:22-23.

Mal. 4
6And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse."

Isaiah 65

17"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.
18But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing,
And her people a joy.
19I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
And joy in My people;
The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her,
Nor the voice of crying.
20"No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
21They shall build houses and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22They shall not build and another inhabit;
They shall not plant and another eat;
For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people,
And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23They shall not labor in vain,
Nor bring forth children for trouble;
For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD,
And their offspring with them.

Again The New Testament shows that it is the believer that are the descendents or seed of the Israel of God Gal 2:28-29 Gal 6:16. Old Covenant ethnic community has passed away Heb 8:13 but spritual Israel of God remains Rom 2:29.


The book of Hebrews in Chapters 8-10 speaks of the inviolability (Heb 8:9) and the exclusivity (Heb 8:10-11) of the New Covenant. In the New Covenant the number of elect persons and those who know the Lord is a co-equal number. Therefore I conclude that The New Covenant consist only of the elect. We are now at a point in redemptive history where the promise seed has come in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Only those in him make up the covenant community.
This has always been the case that only the elect are saved though. Abraham was plainly told this. Isaac was chosen and Ishmael rejected. Jacob was chosen and Esau rejected. But that didn't stop Abraham from including him the historical administration of the covenant of grace. Romans 9 makes that clear, as well as the remnant ideas taught by the prophets, which Paul bases Romans 9 on. But the consistent truth of election did not change the historical administration of that covenant through families. And as shown above, that same pattern is repeated in the prophecies of the New Covenant.

The pattern is consistent with all the covenants. They are made with families and they are everlasting.
Noah Gen. 9:9
Abraham Gen. 12:3, 17:7 "Interesting that all the "families" of the world shall be blessed)
Isaac Gen. 26:3-5
Jacob Gen. 28:4
Moses, verses a plenty, but note Ex. 12 with the Passover institution, an everlasting ordinance celebrated in the family.
David 2 Sam. 7:12-16, 1 Kings 2:1-4 (also interesting how David understood the historical application of his covenant to his descendents despite the obvious fact that his office pointed to Christ)
Also the prophets above.
You already know the NT references I'm sure which certainly would indicate a continuation of this understanding of the historical administration of the covenant despite the continued teaching of only the children of promise being saved. Acts 2:39, 16:31.

I would have to disagree. I do not see a Acts 2:39 or 16:31 as reference to the continuation of such a covenant. I'm sure your aware of credobaptist interpretation of these verses. I be happy to give my interpretation on those verses if you like.

And one question I would really like you to flesh out. How does Christ fulfilling the types and shadows of the OT promises change the historical family orientation of the covenant? How was the family structure a type which Christ fulfilled? What was it a type of? What would be the family's anti-type?

The general principles of those family orientation covenant still apply to the New Testament Church. 1 Cor 7:14. The non saved children of the believing parent(s) are blessed by the New Covenant but not in the New Covenant.


In regards to Romans 11 I would say the true Vine is Christ John 15: 1-7 not Israel since Christ fulfilled what Israel failed to do (typologically). All elect persons from all ages are engrafted into Christ not the old Covenant community of ethnic Israel.

Paul doesn't talk about a vine here but an olive tree. And he speaks of the Gentiles being grafted in "among them," them being ethnic Israel, the visible people of God. So certianly Christ is the true vine, but Paul isn't talking about that concept in Romans 11.

[/quote]

True it is the olive tree and not the Vine but it still is a reference to our spiritual life coming from Christ, yes? This is speaking of the visible church but that doesn't mean that we have an covenant here. Yes it is covenant like language but that does mean it is a covenant. To me the is no warrent in carrying over an Old testament covenant concept that has been fufilled in Chirst. 2 Cor 1:20 Gal 3:19-29 Eph 2:11-19.

Thanks again, I really appreciate your input

VanVos

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by VanVos]
 
I would disagree we use the NT to interpret the OT. The NT is not new revelation or of higher importance than the OT. The NT is essentially a commentary and fulfilment of the promises made in the OT, most basically speaking. Without understanding the OT completely first, we have no prayer to understand the NT, Christ and His words, or the teachings of the Apostles.

No one disagrees that salvation is for the elect alone, that is a non issue. The disagreement is whether or not the promise is made to "you and your offspring," (which it is) and how that relates to the covenant concept. The covenant of promise is misunderstood, in my opinion, by Baptists. I would go so far to say their misunderstanding of covenantal concepts and what exactly a covenant is is the basic crux behind all debate on issues relating to CT between paedos and credos.

If we understand God's covenants of promise with man as having a dual aspect (that of a "legal obligation" and a "communion of life"), we can come closer to understanding God's dealings with not only His people in general but also how He consistently (and without change or variation) deals with families covenantally throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation.
 
Gabriel is right. He may correct me if I misrepresent what he was getting at, but basically he's saying that if you don't understand the OT meaning, you're not automatically going to come up with the correct meaning by the NT rendering. Yes Scripture interprets Scripture. But this means to me that the OT passages inform the NT and vice versa. Interpretation involves knowledge on both sides.

Say you were an interpreter for the American Embassy to China. In order for you to interpret for a chinese person to an american, you have to know chinese and vice versa. In other words, you have to be bilingual. It is the same between the Testaments. They are bilingual. You have to know one to inform the other. One cannot only know the NT to know the OT. It just doesn't work that way.

In Christ,

KC
 
Well I agree with what you are saying, Kevin. Gabe, is that what you meant?

I would say, however, that however well you may understand the Old Testament, without the New Testament certain things would be very much veiled. For example many of the references to Christ.

JH
 
Yes, that is what I was saying. Go through the NT and see all the times Christ mentions "The Law and the Prophets" or the "Books of Moses" and see how many times he makes very strong references to them as being authoritative. If Christ had such a high, priority view of the OT, we should too. To understand Christ is to first understand the OT.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Yes, that is what I was saying. Go through the NT and see all the times Christ mentions "The Law and the Prophets" or the "Books of Moses" and see how many times he makes very strong references to them as being authoritative. If Christ had such a high, priority view of the OT, we should too. To understand Christ is to first understand the OT.

I agree but that doesn't invalidate what I said about the NT better revealing the OT. If we have prophetic passage in the Old Testament that is more clearly explained by a didactic passage in the New Testament then we call allow that to be the interpretation of the Old Testament passage.

VanVos
 
Originally posted by VanVos
And one question I would really like you to flesh out. How does Christ fulfilling the types and shadows of the OT promises change the historical family orientation of the covenant? How was the family structure a type which Christ fulfilled? What was it a type of? What would be the family's anti-type?

The general principles of those family orientation covenant still apply to the New Testament Church. 1 Cor 7:14. The non saved children of the believing parent(s) are blessed by the New Covenant but not in the New Covenant.
You didn't answer the question. How does Christ's coming change the historical administration of the covenant? What specifically did Christ do to fulfill the OT shadow of the family, which is present in every covenant (except for the NT by your interpretation)? And how are non-saved children blessed by the covenant when you must have faith and be elect to obtain the blessings?
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by VanVos
And one question I would really like you to flesh out. How does Christ fulfilling the types and shadows of the OT promises change the historical family orientation of the covenant? How was the family structure a type which Christ fulfilled? What was it a type of? What would be the family's anti-type?

The general principles of those family orientation covenant still apply to the New Testament Church. 1 Cor 7:14. The non saved children of the believing parent(s) are blessed by the New Covenant but not in the New Covenant.
You didn't answer the question. How does Christ's coming change the historical administration of the covenant? What specifically did Christ do to fulfill the OT shadow of the family, which is present in every covenant (except for the NT by your interpretation)? And how are non-saved children blessed by the covenant when you must have faith and be elect to obtain the blessings?

I believe that Christ's coming fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant Rom 4:16-25. Therefore the is no longer an administration of a covenant sign that gives us rights to the Land of Promise Heb 4:8-10. We come heir of all things in Christ (Rev 21:7). In regards to the term 'blessings' I mean to be made holy. The child is set aside to receive certain benefits because of the believing parents i.e. the law of God. Hope this helps.

VanVos
 
So you don't think Paul meant anything by saying we are brought into the Abrahamic promise? He was wrong? I'm confused. How can it be fulfilled or done away with (in Christ) if it says the Gentiles have been brought into the tree and have been drawn near to the covenants of promise through the blood of Christ?
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
So you don't think Paul meant anything by saying we are brought into the Abrahamic promise? He was wrong? I'm confused. How can it be fulfilled or done away with (in Christ) if it says the Gentiles have been brought into the tree and have been drawn near to the covenants of promise through the blood of Christ?

What I'm saying is that the Abrahamic Covenant has been eschatologicalized in the The New Covenant Rom 4:23-25 and we are now members of the New Covenant by faith in the promise seed, both Jew and Gentiles alike Gal 3:28-29

VanVos
 
What I'm saying is that the Abrahamic Covenant has been eschatologicalized in the The New Covenant Rom 4:23-25

Romans 4:23-25 speaks of the fact that we are brought into the Abrahamic promise under the New Covenant administration just as Abraham and the Israelites were. It speaks nothing of "fulfillment" or "doing away with" of the promises and makeup of the covenant.

The very same language was used by Moses to the congregation of Israel in Deuteronomy. He made a point of emphasis that the covenant was not made with their fathers alone, but with their fathers' children, who he was now speaking to. The whole point is that the covenant is everlasting and made with someone 500 years later just as much as it was made with the people who first witnessed its institution.

Deut 4:31 For the Lord your God is a merciful God. He will not leave you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers that he swore to them

Deut 5:3 Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.

Deut 7:12 And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the Lord your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers.



With that covenantal and Scrpitural precedent in mind, these verses make a lot more sense and it is clear to see the intention:

Rom 4:23-25 But the words "œit was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.


we are now members of the New Covenant by faith in the promise seed

The CoG has always been by faith. To say it is now by faith in the New Covenant is an unnecessary distinction.




[Edited on 3-30-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
What I'm saying is that the Abrahamic Covenant has been eschatologicalized in the The New Covenant Rom 4:23-25

Romans 4:23-25 speaks of the fact that we are brought into the Abrahamic promise under the New Covenant administration just as Abraham and the Israelites were. It speaks nothing of "fulfillment" or "doing away with" of the promises and makeup of the covenant.

The very same language was used by Moses to the congregation of Israel in Deuteronomy. He made a point of emphasis that the covenant was not made with their fathers alone, but with their fathers' children, who he was now speaking to. The whole point is that the covenant is everlasting and made with someone 500 years later just as much as it was made with the people who first witnessed its institution.

Deut 4:31 For the Lord your God is a merciful God. He will not leave you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers that he swore to them

Deut 5:3 Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.

Deut 7:12 And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the Lord your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers.



With that covenantal and Scrpitural precedent in mind, these verses make a lot more sense and it is clear to see the intention:

Rom 4:23-25 But the words "œit was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.


we are now members of the New Covenant by faith in the promise seed

The CoG has always been by faith. To say it is now by faith in the New Covenant is an unnecessary distinction.




[Edited on 3-30-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

Notice in verse 34 it says that the imputation of righteousness is only given to those who believe. Abraham's seed is Christ, only those in Christ are in the New Covenant. God has kept his Covenant with Abrahman because all those who have faith in Jesus Christ are saved.

VanVos
 
Originally posted by VanVos
Notice in verse 34 it says that the imputation of righteousness is only given to those who believe. Abraham's seed is Christ, only those in Christ are in the New Covenant. God has kept his Covenant with Abrahman because all those who have faith in Jesus Christ are saved.

You are correct, righteousness is only imputed through faith. But that has always been the case in every covenant administration. Yet that didn't negate the historical administration of the covenant through families as shown with Abraham. The promise to Abraham was to him AND his descendants, and that promise is also extended to us who believe like Abraham. You can't just divorce the spiritual aspect of the covenant from its histrical administration. What Paul is explaining about Abraham has always been the case. That's his argument in Romans 4, 9, and Gal. 3.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by VanVos
Notice in verse 34 it says that the imputation of righteousness is only given to those who believe. Abraham's seed is Christ, only those in Christ are in the New Covenant. God has kept his Covenant with Abrahman because all those who have faith in Jesus Christ are saved.

You are correct, righteousness is only imputed through faith. But that has always been the case in every covenant administration. Yet that didn't negate the historical administration of the covenant through families as shown with Abraham. The promise to Abraham was to him AND his descendants, and that promise is also extended to us who believe like Abraham. You can't just divorce the spiritual aspect of the covenant from its histrical administration. What Paul is explaining about Abraham has always been the case. That's his argument in Romans 4, 9, and Gal. 3.

I agree my friend that salvation has always been by grace through faith. But I'm also saying that according to Hebrews 8 the Covenant of community no longer has non-elect persons. The promised seed has come, therefore there is no longer a community that is set apart by God until the Messiah comes from their line. Eph 4:11-18

VanVos
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top