brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
I hesitate to post this because I know I will get rather differing answers based upon one's understanding of the New Covenant (specifically, are all in the New Covenant elect), but I will ask anyways. (If you could note in your reply first if you believe all in the New Covenant are elect or not, that may help avoid confusion):
I have always understood that the saints of the Old Testament were members of the New Covenant. Just as Christ's cross work reaches back in time, so does the New Covenant. In fact, I would say because the cross reaches back in history, so must the New Covenant. For the blood of Christ is the blood of the New Covenant, not the blood of any other covenant. Christ is the High Priest of the New Covenant and not of any other. Thus for anyone to benefit from His sacrifice to the Father, they must be in the New Covenant.
Also, I don't think I see any other covenants promising a new heart and complete forgiveness of sins. So anyone who has the law re-written on their new heart, and who's sins are remembered no more, in my mind, must be a member of the New Covenant.
I have not seen very much written on this at all. Most writers seem to assume he could not be, I think because they believe it was not yet inaugurated (Samuel Waldron makes this point specifically in his Exposition of LBC). But I have seen very little argumentation on this, mostly assumption. Likewise, Nehemia Coxe seems to assume that Abraham was in the New Covenant, as he makes passing reference to it in his work, yet it seems he also just assumes this without defending or arguing for it.
Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.
I have always understood that the saints of the Old Testament were members of the New Covenant. Just as Christ's cross work reaches back in time, so does the New Covenant. In fact, I would say because the cross reaches back in history, so must the New Covenant. For the blood of Christ is the blood of the New Covenant, not the blood of any other covenant. Christ is the High Priest of the New Covenant and not of any other. Thus for anyone to benefit from His sacrifice to the Father, they must be in the New Covenant.
Also, I don't think I see any other covenants promising a new heart and complete forgiveness of sins. So anyone who has the law re-written on their new heart, and who's sins are remembered no more, in my mind, must be a member of the New Covenant.
I have not seen very much written on this at all. Most writers seem to assume he could not be, I think because they believe it was not yet inaugurated (Samuel Waldron makes this point specifically in his Exposition of LBC). But I have seen very little argumentation on this, mostly assumption. Likewise, Nehemia Coxe seems to assume that Abraham was in the New Covenant, as he makes passing reference to it in his work, yet it seems he also just assumes this without defending or arguing for it.
Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.