Armourbearer,
If you reread what I wrote I never said that the Abrahamic covenant was not
typological.. I quoted Dr. Scott Clark with the Following "Abraham was a member of the very same covenant of grace of which we are members.
He was a member of the covenant of grace under a different, typological administration, but it was the same covenant of grace."
Now as per the Mosaic Covenant.. Maybe I should have been alittle clearer but I was referring to the Mosaic Covenant as a CoW as the Old Covenant which the Abrahamic Covenant is not part of...
The Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the CoG but with a overlap or overlay of a republication of the CoW.
Again, I am going to quote Dr. Scott Clark... "How then was the Mosaic covenant a works covenant? Not relative to salvation but relative to their status as the temporary, typological national people. It is with this theme in view that Paul speaks of Moses as the "old covenant." It isn't just that Moses was typological. Abraham and Noah were typological too but they aren't described as the "old covenant." What is distinct about the Mosaic covenant? It is their status of Israel as God's temporary, typological, cultic people."
I hope this clears up any confusion...
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Quote:
Originally Posted by Coram Deo The Old Covenant was indeed the Mosaic Covenant, Not the Abrahamic Covenant.
The Abrahamic Covenant IS the Covenant of Promise, the Covenant of Grace, An Everlasting Covenant, abet Foreseeing of the promise of Christ as we Look back to the promise of Christ.
The Mosaic Covenant was Types and Shadows (Ceremonial Aspects) that was to point us to Christ. It was all Typological, The Rituals, The Priesthood, The Kingship of David and were intended to be temporary, to be fulfilled by the reality: Christ. The Mosaic Covenant was also a republication of the Covenant of Works.
When the New Testament Speaks of the Old Covenant it is only referring to the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant. | Without wanting to pour or sprinkle water on your baptismal flame -- this is really no different than the fundamental dispensational idea which lies at the heart of all anti-paedobaptistic thought. If the Abrahamic covenant was the non-typical covenant of grace and the Mosaic covenant was the typical covenant of works, then we should be circumcising children as Abraham was commanded, not baptising them as was the case with the nation of Israel under Moses. I also wonder how you justify "sprinkling" without reference to the Mosaic covenant. Your presentation of the unity of the covenant, which undergirds the practice of paedobaptism, needs "conversion," in my humble opinion. |