Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  The "classic" definition is that the Mosaic covenant is essentially a covenant of grace. There are circumstantials added to it from the covenant of works, which subserve the interests of the covenant of grace until Christ comes. In these circumstances Israel typifies Christ. Israel's "circumstantial" failure is owing entirely to its nature as a type. The land for Israel was a type of rest to be found in Christ, and Israel of the promise is not one and the same as Israel after the flesh.
The modern idea destroys the typological element and introduces confusion as to the gracious nature of the Mosaic covenant. It also undermines the continuity of the covenant of grace so far as the inclusion of infants is concerned, because that inclusion depended upon their national citizenship; if that citizenship was a part of the covenant of works, there is no grounds for their inclusion in the NT administration of the covenant of grace.
Look before you cross the road! |
While I have not read "God of Promise" myself, and enjoy listening to Micheal Horton, I generally agree with these criticisms. The Mosaic Covenant should be looked at in the framework of the Covenant of Grace. While systematically, the three-fold use of the law exists within the giving of the law, the context of the ten-commandments warrants the 3rd use as primary. First the indicative, then the imperative.
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."
Now, do this...
__________________
Jeff Bartel
Mechanical Engineer
Member -
Trinity Reformed Church -
RPCNA
"To believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism"
(The Reformation in England (London, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 98) Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?