Quote:
Originally Posted by S. Spence  however the national promises such as land etc were only to be fulfilled if Israel kept faithful to the law. So Horton does see the Mosaic covenant as a reinstatement of the CofW with respect to land but not with respect to salvation. |
I am struggling with this issue too. Didn't Israel sin and broke the law at Mt Sinai and repeatedly afterwards, and in spite of that, God still brought them into the land? That to me sounds more like CoG than CoW, even with respect to the land promise. In contrast, in CoW, there is no grace in breaking the law...
I love listening to WHI, and am under the impression that Horton loves to emphasize the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant and the conditional nature of Mosaic covenant. And I have a hard time squaring it with Genesis 17. To me it seems, in Genesis 17 God's land promise to Abraham is tie up to Abraham's responsibility to "walk before me, and be blameless" and to circumcise his children, just as the land promise in the Mosaic covenant is tie up to Israel keeping the law. So, I am not sure why on one hand we can say Mosaic covenant is a republication of CoW in a typological sense, on the other hand the Abrahamic or Davidic covenant both have typological fulfillment (i.e. land promise) and responsibility, but they are not regarded as a republication of CoW. (I am not advocating that they should be regarded as republication of CoW at all)
I know this topic has been brought up repeatedly, and I really appreciate all previous responses. I am probably not informed enough to make up my mind at the moment...
