What's "NEW" about the New Covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.

Both are tainted by Kline. Kline, and WSCal look more Baptistic concerning their views of the Mosaic in my estimation. Let me explain a little more. I believe that they both hold to a works paradigm for earning something such as staying in the land. If that is true then the Lord has a Works paradigm concerning His Church in the New Covenant also in my estimation.
 
Last edited:
The point is that no one is called into covenant with God based on national, or "physical" promises.

I am not so sure about this Bill. The Church is physical. We are called a holy nation. There are promises of blessing and (cursing if you will). Jesus Himself had some pretty stern warnings starting in Revelation chapter 2 and those were physical entities.
 
Dennis,

Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."

Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.

It appears to me that on the first page they stipulate their substantial agreement with Kline.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the IRBS students, as I understand it, take the bulk of their classes from WSCAL professors and then add some Baptist specific classes from the IRBS profs.
 
Dennis,

Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."

Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.

It appears to me that on the first page they stipulate their substantial agreement with Kline.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the IRBS students, as I understand it, take the bulk of their classes from WSCAL professors and then add some Baptist specific classes from the IRBS profs.

I have to plead ignorance on Kline.
 
Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.

Both are tainted by Kline. Kline, and WSCal looks more Baptistic concerning their views of the Mosaic in my estimation. Let me explain a little more. I believe that they both hold to a works paradigm for earning something such as staying in the land. If that is true then the Lord has a Works paradigm concerning His Church in the New Covenant also in my estimation.

Was the Mosaic Covenant conditional or unconditional? Wasn't Israel put out of the land because they broke the covenant? If that is true, then why would it be wrong to say that it contained a works principle? It wasn't works regarding salvation, but it was conditional regarding possession of the land. In contrast, the New Covenant is an everlasting covenant that cannot be broken. Even if one takes the paedobaptist line (as articulated by Dr. Pratt in his article on the New Covenant and Infant Baptism) everyone agrees that it cannot be revoked or abrogated (or a divorce) as occurred with the Mosaic. Saying that the Mosaic contains a works principle (while not being a COW as a whole) doesn't necessitate adopting Kline's teaching. The 1689 was adopted some time prior to Kline stepping onto the stage. :) And that strain of thought didn't originate in 1689 or 1677.

Most of the Calvinistic Baptists that I am familiar with who strongly identify with Kline couldn't subscribe to the 1689 without crossing some fingers or taking major exceptions. (You should recall one who is a great admirer of Kline and Vos who doesn't post on the RB List anymore because he's NCT.) But I am not that familiar with Renihan and the IRBS. I know some confessional RB's who identify more with the likes of Frame.
 
Last edited:
My problem Chris is where they call it a republication of the Covenant of Works and what they mean by that. I think that is where the problem lies. That means something. I do believe the Law is given in the Old. It is the same Law that was used in the Covenant of Works but it isn't used the same way as it was in the Covenant of Works. And I have had correspondence that says it is. I do not believe it is the same thing. It isn't something that is earned as it would have been with Adam. It isn't something that is owed by debt as St. Paul mentions in Romans. The Church's relationship in both testaments is fully based upon a grace principle that is relational.
 
Dennis
But the covenant of grace was open to those gentiles, even nations, who believed and repented. Is newness, then, only a matter of degree?

The Gentiles had to submit themselves to the full panoply of Israel's pedagogical Old Covenant legislation including the ceremonials and "theonomy" if they wished to enjoy the full benefits of living under the Old Covenant. Otherwise they were second class believers, known as Gentile God-fearers.

That wall is broken down under the New Covenant.

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.But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility (Eph 2:12-14, ESV)

When a Gentile was engrafted into the Old Covenant people of God, his children were included. There is no indication of any change, now that the wall of partition between Jews and Gentile God-fearers has been broken down.

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.

Both are tainted by Kline. Kline, and WSCal looks more Baptistic concerning their views of the Mosaic in my estimation. Let me explain a little more. I believe that they both hold to a works paradigm for earning something such as staying in the land. If that is true then the Lord has a Works paradigm concerning His Church in the New Covenant also in my estimation.

Was the Mosaic Covenant conditional or unconditional? Wasn't Israel put out of the land because they broke the covenant? If that is true, then why would it be wrong to say that it contained a works principle? It wasn't works regarding salvation, but it was conditional regarding possession of the land. In contrast, the New Covenant is an everlasting covenant that cannot be broken. Even if one takes the paedobaptist line (as articulated by Dr. Pratt in his article on the New Covenant and Infant Baptism) everyone agrees that it cannot be revoked or abrogated (or a divorce) as occurred with the Mosaic. Saying that the Mosaic contains a works principle (while not being a COW as a whole) doesn't necessitate adopting Kline's teaching. The 1689 was adopted some time prior to Kline stepping onto the stage. :) And that strain of thought didn't originate in 1689 or 1677.

Most of the Calvinistic Baptists that I am familiar with who strongly identify with Kline couldn't subscribe to the 1689 without crossing some fingers or taking major exceptions. (You should recall one who is a great admirer of Kline and Vos who doesn't post on the RB List anymore because he's NCT.) But I am not that familiar with Renihan and the IRBS. I know some confessional RB's who identify more with the likes of Frame.

There are conditional aspects to the New Covenant arrangement, although it is true that it will not be finally dispensed with, as was the Old Covenant.

The maintenance of a place in the Land (and prosperity in the Land) was a gracious reward from God for good works produced by faith as a result of God's grace. God still offers gracious rewards to His people for their good works.

Being sinners saved by grace, our good works don't intrinsically merit anything, but God deigns to reward them, in His grace to us.

It's impossible to see how any supposed RoCoW could have operated as a true RoCoW, since the Israelites were sinners unlike Adam. It would be wrong of God to try to encourage them to save themselves in any sense.

The moral law may have been presented hypothetically as CoW in order to drive them to the grace that was presented in the ceremonial-sacrificial aspects of the law. But that is not a RoCoW, but a gracious part of the Mosaic Administration of the CoG.
 
The antipaedobaptist revision of Westminster-Savoy teaches conditions of the covenant. 7.2 says, "Moreover, as man had brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace. In this covenant He freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring from them faith in Him that they may be saved, and promising to give to all who are appointed to eternal life His Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe." See also 15.2, "God has mercifully provided in the covenant of grace that when believers sin and fall they shall be renewed through repentance to salvation." Further, 16.6, "He looks upon them in His Son, and is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although it is accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections." Finally, 19.6, 7, the uses of the law for those who are regenerate are in no way contrary to the grace of the gospel: "Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace."

There is no basis for the appeal which is being made to this Confession as if it sets forth ANOTHER Reformed soteriology. It doesn't. If you call yourself "Reformed" -- paedobaptist or antipaedobaptist -- you are bound to acknowledge the teaching of both Confessions that there are conditions in the administration of the covenant of grace even under the New Testament.
 
My problem Chris is where they call it a republication of the Covenant of Works and what they mean by that. I think that is where the problem lies. That means something. I do believe the Law is given in the Old. It is the same Law that was used in the Covenant of Works but it isn't used the same way as it was in the Covenant of Works. And I have had correspondence that says it is. I do not believe it is the same thing. It isn't something that is earned as it would have been with Adam. It isn't something that is owed by debt as St. Paul mentions in Romans. The Church's relationship in both testaments is fully based upon a grace principle that is relational.

Randy,

I don't know much about Kline, so I am hesitant to comment on his theology.

I like what Micah and Samuel Renihan have to say when they talk about the retro-aspect of the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace is seen in the Old Testament covenants, although it is sometimes opaque in nature. Faith was still required to be saved (Gen. 15:6); but it's not salvation that I'm referring to here. The physical promises of the Abrahamic Covenant had inherent limitations. Unless one is prone towards dispensationalism the promises to national Israel are fulfilled in the Church. The New Covenant can look back and see glimpses of what was promised. That is undeniable. The finger prints of grace are all over the Old Testament. But the New Covenant is new; even radically so. I'm not going to delve deeper into it than that because I'm not seeking to have this morph into a baptism discussion.
 
If you call yourself "Reformed" -- paedobaptist or antipaedobaptist -- you are bound to acknowledge the teaching of both Confessions that there are conditions in the administration of the covenant of grace even under the New Testament.

Matthew,

I'm not sure we were in any form of disagreement on this point, but I am happy to concur that that are conditions contained in the New Covenant. Of course, as a Baptist, I would add that only the elect can meet these conditions; and that not of their own efforts, but through the work of grace in the hearts.
 
I'm very much a novice on the essence of Mosaic theology, much-less how Kline understands it, but it seems to me that even IF it was fully an outworking of the CoG in theory, isn't it the whole point of the New Testament that it didn't work - that the people failed to live up to it?

There are conditional aspects to the New Covenant arrangement, although it is true that it will not be finally dispensed with, as was the Old Covenant.

I don't see how this can be true if one takes the wording of the NC seriously. "They will ALL know me, from the least to the greatest." How could there be a dropping out of its members? The Presbyterian understanding is that the NC has only been inaugurated at the cross, but will reach its final and pure membership in the end. Now, there is a mixed membership, conditional aspects, and an outward administration, but eventually the membership will be weeded out like a Navy Seals selection course.

From beginning to end the only use that is made of the passage from Jeremiah is the objective, redemptive-historical significance that it has with respect to the change of priesthood.

How can one separate the objective redemptive-historical priesthood from the people to whom the Priest is ministering? The group that is receiving the ministry of Christ is by no means a non-issue when considering these matters. What indication is there in this epistle that those who receive the ministry of this High Priest can become finally rejected and lost? Are the warning passages really for that purpose of describing what it will be like to fall out of the New Covenant? See what the writer says in Heb 6 after his stern warning about falling away:

9 Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. 10For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. 11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

The warning passages are directed at non-regenerate pretenders who have come into the church but have no place in the New Covenant.

---------- Post added at 07:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 AM ----------

I like what Micah and Samuel Renihan have to say when they talk about the retro-aspect of the New Covenant.
I haven't read the article, but this was sort of what I was getting at with my comment in another thread about union with Christ being retro-actively applied to Old Testament saints. That concept didn't go over very well on the thread. Perhaps I first need to get my PhD before making those suggestions!
 
I'm very much a novice on the essence of Mosaic theology, much-less how Kline understands it, but it seems to me that even IF it was fully an outworking of the CoG in theory, isn't it the whole point of the New Testament that it didn't work - that the people failed to live up to it?

That question is exactly why I posted this most recent blog Dennis. They didn't see the Covenant correctly and tried to establish their own understanding of it.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/
 
Of course, as a Baptist, I would add that only the elect can meet these conditions; and that not of their own efforts, but through the work of grace in the hearts.

There are plenty of "Baptists" who don't see it this way, so being a "Baptist" does not guarantee this view of the subject. Being "Reformed" does, and all who are "Reformed" should regard the fulfilment of the conditions of the covenant as the work grace -- hence the name, covenant of grace.
 
I don't see how this can be true if one takes the wording of the NC seriously. "They will ALL know me, from the least to the greatest." How could there be a dropping out of its members? The Presbyterian understanding is that the NC has only been inaugurated at the cross, but will reach its final and pure membership in the end. Now, there is a mixed membership, conditional aspects, and an outward administration, but eventually the membership will be weeded out like a Navy Seals selection course.

This is so distorted Dennis that I think you need to study a lot more and get to know the Presbyterian position before you make such claims. It is nothing like a Navy Seals selection course where one earns their way into an organism by their ability and power. This is so not true. And the conditionality of the Covenants or Covenant of grace from our side is not about justification.

Dennis, I really suggest you ask questions instead of make false accusations and parallels that simply are not true. I asked you to go away and prayerfully study. I really suggest you do this. And I mean do it for a few weeks at least. I would suggest longer actually. My theology hasn't developed over night and yours won't either. Take a step back. Listen and quit making false parallels and assumptions.
 
The warning passages are directed at non-regenerate pretenders who have come into the church but have no place in the New Covenant.

I don't believe you are correct. That makes no sense at all. He is writing to the Church. And it is in the vein of 2 Corinthians 13:5 that we are all to examine ourselves. All of us are to make our election and calling sure as St. Peter noted.
 
How can one separate the objective redemptive-historical priesthood from the people to whom the Priest is ministering?

You were making the separation by rejecting the objectivity of Hebrews 8-10 with reference to the change of priesthood. I was showing the objective context. If you view the people within this context you will see that the application of the "new covenant" can't possibly be in the direction of an inward work ensuring a regenerate covenant membership. The parallel is between the two priesthoods and their effect on the people, not between the two kinds of people. In the former you have priests who could not once and for all sacrifice for the remission of sins. In the latter Christ has once and for all sacrificed for the remission of sins. The people, in both instances, are sinners. It is because they are sinners that they need a priest to sacrifice for them. If one makes the contrast to consist in the subjective state of the people one is effectively saying that the people of the new covenant don't need ANY priest because they perfectly keep the law of God written in their hearts. This would deny the gospel altogether. The very fact that the writer exhorts them to hold fast their confession of Jesus as their great high priest indicates that they are still sinners who depend upon His atoning sacrifice. The law of God is not so written in their hearts that they no longer have sin which requires atonement.

The group that is receiving the ministry of Christ is by no means a non-issue when considering these matters. What indication is there in this epistle that those who receive the ministry of this High Priest can become finally rejected and lost? Are the warning passages really for that purpose of describing what it will be like to fall out of the New Covenant?

They are Hebrews being tempted to return to the ordinances of the Old Testament. The warnings are fitted to show them the fact that there is no divine refuge in Old Testament ordinances now that Jesus has come. The warning which ensues the teaching of the new covenant frames the threatening in such a way as to include the covenantal nature of God's curse. 10:29, "who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing." Again, it only makes sense if the objective nature of the covenant is understood. If you insist on making Hebrews 8-10 something subjective which only applies to the elect you would be bound to maintain that the elect could profane the blood of the covenant, which denies one of the fundamental points of Calvinism. Taking it objectively, as a point of administration, no such problem is encountered.
 
Dennis, I really suggest you ask questions instead of make false accusations and parallels that simply are not true. I asked you to go away and prayerfully study. I really suggest you do this. And I mean do it for a few weeks at least. I would suggest longer actually. My theology hasn't developed over night and yours won't either. Take a step back. Listen and quit making false parallels and assumptions.

Randy, I appreciate your suggestion, and you're right I do need to spend some time with primary source material. If you are speaking as a moderator, then just let me have it. :) I do enjoy and get a lot out of these communal interactions. I hope I'm not wasting the time of the PB seniors but that these discussions are helpful for more than just me. I will try to ask more clarifying questions. thanks!

The warning which ensues the teaching of the new covenant frames the threatening in such a way as to include the covenantal nature of God's curse. 10:29, "who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing." Again, it only makes sense if the objective nature of the covenant is understood. If you insist on making Hebrews 8-10 something subjective which only applies to the elect you would be bound to maintain that the elect could profane the blood of the covenant, which denies one of the fundamental points of Calvinism.

One should appreciate the figurative language of Hebrews. An elect person (or anyone else for that matter) could not "profane the blood of the covenant" anymore than a person can "crucify again the Son of God and hold him up to contempt" (6:6). Are not these statements figures of speech, meant to convey how terrible it is to drop back into Judaism from Christ? An unregenerate person could never profane blood that was never spilled for him. He cannot offend a covenant of which he was never a member. Isn't it more problematic for someone to suggest that sanctifying blood and a gracious Spirit can be removed and undone from a covenant member? This is likewise very un-Calvinistic.

Consider again, what always follows the word of warning in chapter 10: assurance that the preceding is NOT the case for the church to which he is writing.
...It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.

How do Presbyterians understand the sanctifying blood and work of the Holy Spirit of a covenant member who apostatizes?
 
An unregenerate person could never profane blood that was never spilled for him. He cannot offend a covenant of which he was never a member. Isn't it more problematic for someone to suggest that sanctifying blood and a gracious Spirit can be removed and undone from a covenant member? This is likewise very un-Calvinistic.

You are reading "elect" into the text and reading "unregenerate" out of the text, and then drawing conclusions as to what the text must say in order to fit your theological system. Let the text speak for itself and it is obvious that one can profane the blood of the covenant; further, that the one who can profane the blood of the covenant is one who "professes" to have an interest in that covenant. When it is all brought together it is obvious that the text addresses people who have come to participate in the external administration of the covenant but who were in danger of turning from that profession. If that is so, then "profession" gives interest in the covenant. Let the text speak for itself and you will not have to torture it to make it speak what you want it to.

How do Presbyterians understand the sanctifying blood and work of the Holy Spirit of a covenant member who apostatizes?

In accord with the plain and common sense of the words, that they were only externally in covenant by virtue of their profession.
 
Rev. Winzer, if it's Christ's real blood that is applied in the external administration of the covenant, then doesn't it follow that Christ's blood is ineffective to save those who are sanctified by it but apostatize?
 
Rev. Winzer, if it's Christ's real blood that is applied in the external administration of the covenant, then doesn't it follow that Christ's blood is ineffective to save those who are sanctified by it but apostatize?

Did you not read the word "profession" in the previous post? It is what the person "professes." The address to "professors" indicates that the epistle is dealing with the objective administration of the covenant. 3:1, "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." 4:14, "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." 10:23, "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)." Sometimes "confidence" stands in the place of "profession." 3:6, "whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." 3:14, "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." 10:35, "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward."

I might also add, this is not distinctively Presbyterian. If antipaedobaptists would attend to their own "confession" they would find the same view of the matter. Read 10.4 and 14.3, and you will see that this is not a paedobaptist distinctive.
 
I did read that part about "profession." I'm now trying to nail down how a professor relates with the blood of the new covenant. Does a non-elect professor have an interest in Christ's actual atoning blood?

Also, I'm not sure that the LBCF admits to an external administration of the New Covenant, but I might be wrong.
 
I did read that part about "profession." I'm now trying to nail down how a professor relates with the blood of the new covenant. Does a non-elect professor have an interest in Christ's actual atoning blood?

By profession, yes. A covenant has two parties -- God and man. God makes the covenant and man enters into it by restipulation, i.e., by avouching God to be his God. Nor is that a paedobaptist distinctive as you will find it in authors like Nehemiah Coxe (who had a hand in the Confession) and Benjamin Keach (who drew up the Catechism).

Also, I'm not sure that the LBCF admits to an external administration of the New Covenant, but I might be wrong.

Allow me to copy and paste the following from a previous post on this thread:

The antipaedobaptist revision of Westminster-Savoy teaches conditions of the covenant. 7.2 says, "Moreover, as man had brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace. In this covenant He freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring from them faith in Him that they may be saved, and promising to give to all who are appointed to eternal life His Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe." See also 15.2, "God has mercifully provided in the covenant of grace that when believers sin and fall they shall be renewed through repentance to salvation." Further, 16.6, "He looks upon them in His Son, and is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although it is accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections." Finally, 19.6, 7, the uses of the law for those who are regenerate are in no way contrary to the grace of the gospel: "Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace."
 
By profession, yes. A covenant has two parties -- God and man. God makes the covenant and man enters into it by restipulation, i.e., by avouching God to be his God.

There are two parties, but only one blood of the covenant. There are two parties, but the working out of the covenant will be unilateral on God's power and provision. What does the blood do? It washes, it atones, etc. How can it do that for someone who falls away and is lost? doesn't that say something of the effectiveness (or, non-effectiveness) of the blood of the covenant?
 
There are two parties, but only one blood of the covenant. There are two parties, but the working out of the covenant will be unilateral on God's power and provision. What does the blood do? It washes, it atones, etc. How can it do that for someone who falls away and is lost? doesn't that say something of the effectiveness (or, non-effectiveness) of the blood of the covenant?

Only true believers have their sins washed away, but this is irrelevant to the point under discussion. Hebrews recognises the interest one has in the blood of the covenant by "profession" even where there is not "possession" of its saving benefits. On that basis it is obvious that there is an external administration of the covenant.
 
Only true believers have their sins washed away, but this is irrelevant to the point under discussion. Hebrews recognises the interest one has in the blood of the covenant by "profession" even where there is not "possession" of its saving benefits. On that basis it is obvious that there is an external administration of the covenant.

I think I need clarity on this very slippery term "by profession." Either the blood, the real blood that Jesus walked into the Holy of Holies in heaven with, is sprinkled upon a New Covenant member or it isn't. Having an interest "by profession" makes the blood sound like a concept or some potential state (which is perhaps required for the external administration argument). Then I could see how one could profane blood as a concept or a hypothetical. Or, the writer is speaking of it figuratively, just as he spoke of someone "crucifying again the Son of God." But if we are talking literally of Christ's blood here, then we encounter the problem of how it manages to be ineffective for some of those for whom it is spilled.
 
Thayers
2) to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
2a) consecrate things to God
2b) dedicate people to God
Robertson's word Pictures

Wherewith he was sanctified (en hōi hēgiasthē). First aorist passive indicative of hagiazō. It is an unspeakable tragedy that should warn every follower of Christ not to play with treachery to Christ (cf. Heb_6:4-8).

John Gill

and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing
;

or "common thing"; putting it upon a level with the blood of a bullock, or at most counting it איך דכלנש, "as that of another man"; as the Syriac version renders it; yea, reckoning it as unclean and abominable, as the blood of a very wicked man: this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so: or rather the Son of God himself is meant, who was sanctified, set apart, hallowed, and consecrated, as Aaron and his sons were sanctified by the sacrifices of slain beasts, to minister in the priest's office: so Christ, when he had offered himself, and shed his precious blood, by which the covenant of grace was ratified, by the same blood he was brought again from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power; and being set down at God's right hand, he ever lives to make intercession, which is the other part of his priestly office he is sanctified by his own blood to accomplish. This clause, "wherewith he was sanctified", is left out in the Alexandrian copy

I personally don't think the later half of Gill is viable in light of the whole context of the book. It is Owen's interpretation that I believe he is revealing. I believe Gill reveals his understanding in the first part.

Barnes notes
Wherewith he was sanctified
- Made holy, or set apart to the service of God. The word “sanctify” is used in both these senses. Prof. Stuart renders it, “by which expiation is made;” and many others, in accordance with this view, have supposed that it refers to the Lord Jesus. But it seems to me that it refers to the person who is here supposed to renounce the Christian religion, or to apostatize from it. The reasons for this are such as these:
(1) it is the natural and proper meaning of the word rendered here “sanctified.” This word is commonly applied to Christians in the sense that they are made holy; see Act_20:32; Act_26:18; 1Co_1:2; Jud_1:1; compare Joh_10:36; Joh_17:17.
(2) it is unusual to apply this word to the Saviour. It is true, indeed, that he says Joh_17:19, “for their sakes I sanctify myself,” but there is no instance in which he says that he was sanctified by his own blood. And where is there an instance in which the word is used as meaning “to make expiations?”
(3) the supposition that it refers to one who is here spoken of as in danger of apostasy, and not of the Lord Jesus, agrees with the scope of the argument. The apostle is showing the great guilt, and the certain destruction, of one who should apostatize from the Christian religion. In doing this it was natural to speak of the dishonor which would thus be done to the means which had been used for his sanctification - the blood of the Redeemer. It would be treating it as if it were a common thing, or as if it might be disregarded like anything else which was of no value.

There are different tenses and application of separation that Christ's work does. The term Justification is used in different tenses also. Both are true. James uses the term Justification different than Paul does.

The blood of Christ and the work of Christ are never ineffectual for what purpose he intends for it. Even Judas (who being a devil was joined to Christ's person and earthly ministry) was set apart and shared in the benefits of the company he was attached to. His work did point to Christ or he would have been found out early to be a devil by his companions. Paul makes mention of those who preach Christ for their own benefit. He sees that God still uses those people. They have an outward calling and attachment outwardly that God uses but inwardly they are defiled. There is something right about what is going on but they end up falling away. And it is founded by His providence and His work. Some of this has to do with the mediatorial dominion and reign of Christ that He purchased the right for. He has dominion of all things for the Church by his person and work.

(Php 1:15) Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:

(Php 1:16) The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:


(Php 1:17) But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.


(Php 1:18) What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
 
Last edited:
The people, in both instances, are sinners. It is because they are sinners that they need a priest to sacrifice for them. If one makes the contrast to consist in the subjective state of the people one is effectively saying that the people of the new covenant don't need ANY priest because they perfectly keep the law of God written in their hearts. This would deny the gospel altogether. The very fact that the writer exhorts them to hold fast their confession of Jesus as their great high priest indicates that they are still sinners who depend upon His atoning sacrifice. The law of God is not so written in their hearts that they no longer have sin which requires atonement.
I think this is the most important thing that can be said here. Hebrews is one of the most important books in the Bible because it presents a lofty theology of the atonement of Christ and brings it down to the lives of actual sinners.

One of the most helpful and dangerous concepts at the same time is the notion of election. On the one hand, it is helpful and important because men need to understand that God is sovereign to save sinners and those whom He objectively saves are saved indeed. On the other hand, this thread demonstrates how the knowledge that God elects somehow overcomes our creaturely dependence upon the means He uses to administer something objective. Too many people want to remain in the area of abstraction as if their knowledge of the Covenant of Redemption is all God has said on the subject.

We're sinners. We're creatures. We don't live by the hidden things but by the things that are revealed. The distance between the Creator and creature is so great that if God did not condescend to reveal Himself we would not have knowledge of anything about Him or His intentions to us.

Let's assume for a moment that it's the intention of God to simply reveal to us that He's going to save the elect and that He's set up the New Covenant simply for the salvation of the elect. If it were left at that then there could be no objective point of contact between what the Church administers and the New Covenant itself. Baptism cannot be said, objectively, to be into the New Covenant, as far as what the Church testifies to, because they have no means to ascertain that the person is elect. This is why antipaedobaptists acknowledge that members can only objectively be said to be baptized into the local congregation. The local congregation itself cannot even be objectively be said to be part of the New Covenant for all might be false professors.

Certainly the antipaedobaptist wants to affirm that he has had the testimony of the Spirit objectively testify to his heart that he is a child of God and, consequently, is confident of his own regeneration and election. At best, though, he has objective contact with the New Covenant only with himself and cannot objectively identify anyone outside the 1 foot radius of his body that is in the New Covenant. He's reasonably (subjectively) confident that others in his local congregation are in the New Covenant but there is nothing historically present and objective beside the testimony of the Holy Spirit that allows him to know where the New Covenant is physically present in the world.

In other words, Matthew has hit on the key point when one loses track of the authors' point in the Book of Hebrews. As I've noted before, Hebrews is a long polemic about the necessity to press in and believe in Christ and connects saints in the past who were aiming at the same object. Those who shrank back were judged and, repeatedly, the author makes the point that those of us who have the nexus of redemptive history as our present possession will be judged much more harshly. Somehow, however, in the midst of this argument, the author goes on some wild tangent that the elect can't fall away as if the point of that whole excursis is to convince the Hebrews that the only people in the New Covenant are those that aren't going to need to be told to know the Lord because, if you're elect, you'll know the Lord. Who's he writing to anyway? Just those that didn't know the Lord? Are the warning passages to press in and believe even relevant to those who are elect? The theme of "knowing the Lord" dominates Hebrews.

Christ is for sinners. His objective Priesthood is for needy sinners. It's for the first-time convert who hears the Gospel for the first time and embraces Christ. He receives objective entry into a visible administration of God's Kingdom here on earth where he can trust something more than his heart, which the Scriptures testify to us everyday that we should not trust. If that sinner shrinks back then Christ's Kingdom is objectively present to warn and to rebuke and to encourage to press in. He can see needy sinners in the OT who needed to press forward as well who, likewise, had objective signs that God was working in their midst and who knew where they might go to find an outpost of the Kingdom of God. If they shrink back, the Church is objectively present as Christ's ambassadors warning that they have received clear news about the excellencies of Christ and that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

We live our lives as sinners in need of grace from beginning to end. The notion that we're somehow islands of subjective possession of election with some semi-confident notion that our local congregation may or may not be part of the one true Church is completely dissonant from what the Scriptures teach as well as completely the opposite of what needy sinners need from God.
 
... is this the Reformed Baptistic understanding of the covenant, in distinction to the Presbyterian view, which views the Mosaic as completely an administration of the CoG?

I thought there were a number of Presbyterians who argued the Mosaic wasn't an administration of the Covenant of Grace. But, most 1689 LBCF Reformed Baptists I've come across believe it was a gracious covenant. Sam Waldron argues the confession teaches it.
 
I think I need clarity on this very slippery term "by profession." Either the blood, the real blood that Jesus walked into the Holy of Holies in heaven with, is sprinkled upon a New Covenant member or it isn't. Having an interest "by profession" makes the blood sound like a concept or some potential state (which is perhaps required for the external administration argument). Then I could see how one could profane blood as a concept or a hypothetical. Or, the writer is speaking of it figuratively, just as he spoke of someone "crucifying again the Son of God." But if we are talking literally of Christ's blood here, then we encounter the problem of how it manages to be ineffective for some of those for whom it is spilled.

Again, you are reading ideas into the text and abstracting problems out of what you have read into it. Now, on top of election and regeneration, you are looking for the divine intention in the giving of Jesus. This is all irrelevant to the point we are discussing. When Christ is preached in the gospel He is preached to all men indiscriminately, without any question being made as to the person's election or reprobation. Every person to whom the gospel comes has a warrant to believe on the Lord Jesus for eternal salvation. Christ is made freely available to the sinner as a sinner. Doubtless those for whom Christ died in the purpose of God will certainly and effectually come to Jesus and be washed in His blood, but that is not the point Hebrews is making. Whenever any sinner, elect or reprobate, "professes" Jesus Christ to be their great high priest, they take to themselves the promise that His blood avails to put away sin. Whether it is so in the heavenly tabernacle, in God's own view of the person, is beside the point. In the assembly of the saints on earth the "profession" is all that is needed for the person to be regarded as such. The repeated use of the words "profession" and "confidence" in Hebrews suffices to show that this is what the writer is addressing. When understood this way there can be no doubt that Hebrews teaches a visible, external administration of the covenant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top