Houston E.
Puritan Board Freshman
(If this has already been discussed, please direct me to the thread.)
In C. Matthew McMahon's A Simplistic Overview of Covenant Theology, he makes the following quote,
If there was not, but yet the reality of the curse existed, then why is there not equally a true reality of a curse (and not purely hypothetical) when one states the position of only the elect can be in the New Covenant?
In C. Matthew McMahon's A Simplistic Overview of Covenant Theology, he makes the following quote,
My question... was there really a possibility of Christ breaking covenant and thereby being subject to the curse?By oath, the Son is consigned to covenant with the Father. he is to be priest. He is to be the sacrifice for sin and the priest who continually intercedes for those for whom He dies. In this, the Son is ratified by the oath to make the Counsel of Peace effectual. he now must obey. If He does not obey, the oath is broken, and curse would result.
If there was not, but yet the reality of the curse existed, then why is there not equally a true reality of a curse (and not purely hypothetical) when one states the position of only the elect can be in the New Covenant?