I received two responses from a baptist who believes in 1689 Federalism and he has stated these two troubling points:
(1) "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the MC were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."
And also,
"The Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel. Paul made this clear in Romans 2 and 9. This is why your understanding of covenant theology works better for presbyterians who believe the covenant of grace is a mix between believes and unbelievers."
How would you respond?
(1) "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the MC were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."
And also,
"The Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel. Paul made this clear in Romans 2 and 9. This is why your understanding of covenant theology works better for presbyterians who believe the covenant of grace is a mix between believes and unbelievers."
How would you respond?