Quote:
Originally Posted by S. Spence  From what folks are saying here, the general consensus seems to be that Ishmael and Esau etc were not actually in the Covenant but only received the sign of the covenant, fair enough.
However is it then correct to speak of them as Covenant breakers, as if they were never in the covenant how could they break it?
Heb 10:29 and other passages do seem to indicate that it is still possible to break the covenant in this NC era. I don't think that these passages can really be totally explained away by just saying they are talking about false professors who were baptised. That’s why I believe that covenant and election are separate. The covenant can be and is broken, whereas those saved by God will persevere until the end. |
They can be said to have been in the covenant, because they were raised within the promises of the covenant. Yet this does not mean that God was unfaithful to them, for what benefit they should have derived from it, accused them all the more.
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
-- Romans 3:1-3 (ESV)
If the covenant and election are separate, then what is the purpose of the covenant, and who are the objects of the covenant? The covenant of works is broken everyday by everyone, but the covenant of grace stands upon the promise of God alone, and that grounded in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
