Covenant of Grace

Your view of the components of the Covenant of Grace?

  • All POST-Fall Covenants

    Votes: 28 84.8%
  • Only the New Covenant established in the New Testament

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • All POST-Fall Covenants except the Mosaic (Mosaic republication of COW)

    Votes: 3 9.1%

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
I think I can generally agree with those statements yes, but none of that takes away from the NC being the consummation (It is finished) of the overall CoG.

Read the Matthew Henry commentary. It helped me at least. OT (elect) and NT (elect) have always been saved the same way in my opinion, by faith in Christ alone and by the grace of God alone (redemption applied by the HS in OT and NT)..that is the formula of the CoG..made most fully clear in the NC. If the OT saints only needed to do law (which was impossible since the fall on their own), but needed not redemption by grace alone, then none of our dead OT brothers/sisters could have ever been saved....less you believe there is more than 1 way of salvation after the fall. Job/David/ Moses did not enter the CoG after Christ stated "it is finished"...no they were apart of the CoG before the 12 apostles (minus Judas) were a part of the CoG.

I hope this helps. As always I am open to corrections.
All saved in either Covenant would be due to the Cross of Christ, and saved by Faith alone, through grace alone, but the 2 Covenants are not the same, as there is some discontinuity between the 2 of them, not as much as Dispensational see it, but not as little as Presbyterians would see it.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
I take it to be referring to time of Christ, and also dealing with time of his Second Coming.

We fully understand how you 'take it'. Absolutely, no one in the historic church held to this belief; this is classic, pre-mil dispensationalism, i.e. Scofield, Ryrie et. al., which is slightly more that a century old.

John Macarthur, who is a classic dispensationalist, even he, disagrees with you.

 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
Thanks for sharing. This article does showcase the 1689federlaism vs. what they call “modern Baptist covinenet theology”. I have been looking for that diagram... because I think it was removed from the 1689federalism site.
Yes, I am not sure if a full study has been done on Spurgeon's Baptist CT. You may find it a worthwhile exercise to read all Spurgeon's sermons on the covenants and related topics, and see if you can establish Spurgeon's particular view on this.

Brother.....I merely state that you hold to a baptist CT because from your personal information on your profile you claim to hold to the LBC ....so no I really have no quibble just noted something from your profile info.... if your profile would have listed Westminster, I would have said Presbyterian CT. I assume one who holds to the LBC (first or second for that matter) is a baptist with some form of CT... if the assumption is wrong... then i stand corrected.
Apologies! I stand corrected. I had changed my signature but not my profile.

But again thank you for that Wordpress article... I could no longer find the diagram used in the 1689federlalist site, and it was helpful.
The 1689 Federalism website used to have a video on "1689 Federalism" and another on "modern day Reformed Baptist theology" as a contrast. They appear to have removed the latter perhaps because of some debates within USA RB churches.
 

Grant

Puritan Board Senior
Yes, I am not sure if a full study has been done on Spurgeon's Baptist CT. You may find it a worthwhile exercise to read all Spurgeon's sermons on the covenants and related topics, and see if you can establish Spurgeon's particular view on this.


Apologies! I stand corrected. I had changed my signature but not my profile.


The 1689 Federalism website used to have a video on "1689 Federalism" and another on "modern day Reformed Baptist theology" as a contrast. They appear to have removed the latter perhaps because of some debates within USA RB churches.
Yes it is strange that both have been taken down from the site.... perhaps a PR move haha
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
No, I fully agree that water baptism is tobe dome to one based upon the confession of now being saved by Jesus, but to Paul, the indwelling of the Holy spirit would be the true sign.
Once again, the indwelling of the Spirit is not a sign. Not to Paul, not to anyone. A sign is something people do to symbolize something. The indwelling of the HS is a sovereign work of Himself.
 

Grant

Puritan Board Senior
Thanks for the link, Grant.
I know a dispensationalist whose master's dissertation was an effort to prove that Spurgeon was also a dispensationalist....point being, quotes can be cherry-picked from almost anybody to prove something. Strangely, they call my view modern, and admit that John Gill held to it. But no amount of dead guys on either side can compare to the witness of Scripture.
I will say in charity to my Federalism friends, that there is a lot of "do this and receive temporal blessings" language in the OC. But what they miss is that the temporal blessings, the land promises, all those things, are types and shadows of the reality. The Mosaic law was a schoolmaster to show them (and us) the need for an alien righteousness--no one could ever hope to be justified by the works of the law. Did God chastise temporal law breaking with temporal curses? sure! But even that was illustrating the principle we still have today: that the way of the transgressor is hard, and that whom the Lord loves He chastens.

It could even be said that the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled, that everywhere his foot trod would be given to his descendants. It was, and more, during the reigns of David and Solomon. But David and Solomon were only shadows of Messiah, and the peace and prosperity they brought were only shadows of the better peace, the better-the spiritual-prosperity that were coming with Christ. So though it was fulfilled in a way, the land of Palestine was only a shadow of what the promise to Abraham was really about. Abraham by faith was seeking a city not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens.

While they recoil in horror at the term, the 1689 federalists insistence upon temporal land and temporal blessings being the point of the OC is dangerously close to being dispensational. Someone should make a Venn Diagram showing how similar those two positions have become.
Ben,

You may also find this article interesting. The 1689 crew further explaining the choice to use the label "20th Century Reformed Baptist". I don't agree with the label, but I thought you might find interesting.

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/cat...ederalism/20th-century-reformed-baptist-view/
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
Ben,

You may also find this article interesting. The 1689 crew further explaining the choice to use the label "20th Century Reformed Baptist". I don't agree with the label, but I thought you might find interesting.

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/cat...ederalism/20th-century-reformed-baptist-view/
I have a hard time reading much of their stuff, because they are so wordy, and quote at such length. They should prob'ly stick to Venn Diagrams for attention spans as brief as mine. But thanks for the link! I'd rather they succinctly expounded the scriptures rather than quote reams of dead-guy notes.
 

Grant

Puritan Board Senior
I have a hard time reading much of their stuff, because they are so wordy, and quote at such length. They should prob'ly stick to Venn Diagrams for attention spans as brief as mine. But thanks for the link! I'd rather they succinctly expounded the scriptures rather than quote reams of dead-guy notes.
Haha... I did not fully read either, but skimmed.
 

JTB.SDG

Puritan Board Junior
Matthew Henry's Commentary (always great in my opinion) offers helpful clarity on this section of Jeremiah as well. David you may find it helpful to read this as well.

From Matthew Henry's Commentary:

That God will renew his covenant with them, so that all these blessings they shall have, not by providence only, but by promise, and thereby they shall be both sweetened and secured. But this covenant refers to gospel times, the latter days that shall come; for of gospel grace the apostle understands it (Heb. 8:8, Heb. 8:9 , etc.), where this whole passage is quoted as a summary of the covenant of grace made with believers in Jesus Christ. Observe, 1. Who the persons are with whom this covenant is made—with the house of Israel and Judah, with the gospel church, the Israel of God on which peace shall be (Gal. 6:16 ), with the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob. Judah and Israel had been two separate kingdoms, but were united after their return, in the joint favours God bestowed upon them; so Jews and Gentiles were in the gospel church and covenant. 2. What is the nature of this covenant in general: it is a new covenantand not according to the covenant made with them when they came out of Egypt; not as if that made with them at Mount Sinai were a covenant of nature and innocency, such as was made with Adam in the day he was created; no, that was, for substance, a covenant of grace, but it was a dark dispensation of that covenant in comparison with this in gospel times. Sinners were saved by that covenant upon their repentance, and faith in a Messiah to come, whose blood, confirming that covenant, was typified by that of the legal sacrifices, Ex. 24:7, Ex. 24:8 . Yet this may upon many accounts be called new, in comparison with that; the ordinances and promises are more spiritual and heavenly, and the discoveries much more clear. That covenant God made with them when he took them by the hand, as they had been blind, or lame, or weak, to lead them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke. Observe, It was God that made this covenant, but it was the people that broke it; for our salvation is of God, but our sin and ruin are of ourselves. It was an aggravation of their breach of it that God was a husband to them, that he had espoused them to himself; it was a marriage-covenant that was between him and them, which they broke by idolatry, that spiritual adultery. It is a great aggravation of our treacherous departures from God that he has been a husband to us, a loving, tender, careful husband, faithful to us, and yet we false to him. 3. What are the particular articles of his covenant. They all contain spiritual blessings; not, "I will give them the land of Canaan and a numerous issue,’’ but, "I will give them pardon, and peace, and grace, good heads and good hearts.’’ He promises, (1.) That he will incline them to their duty; I will put my law in their inward part and write it in their heart; not, I will give them a new law (as Mr. Gataker well observes), for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it; but the law shall be written in their hearts by the finger of the Spirit as formerly it was written in the tables of stone. God writes his law in the hearts of all believers, makes it ready and familiar to them, at hand when they have occasion to use it, as that which is written in the heart, Prov. 3:3 . He makes them in care to observe it, for that which we are solicitous about is said to lie near our hearts. He works in them a disposition to obedience, a conformity of thought and affection to the rules of the divine law, as that of the copy to the original. This is here promised, and ought to be prayed for, that our duty may be done conscientiously and with delight.

(2.) That he will take them into relation to himself: I will be their God, a God all-sufficient to them, and they shall be my people, a loyal obedient people to me. God’s being to us a God is the summary of all happiness; heaven itself is no more, Heb. 11:16 ; Rev. 21:3 . Our being to him a people may be taken either as the condition on our part (those and those only shall have God to be to them a God that are truly willing to engage themselves to be to him a people) or as a further branch of the promise that God will by his grace make us his people, a willing people, in the day of his power; and, whoever are his people, it is his grace that makes them so. (3.) That there shall be an abundance of the knowledge of God among all sorts of people, and this will have an influence upon all good: for those that rightly know God’s name will seek him, and serve him, and put their trust in him (v. 34): All shall know me; all shall be welcome to the knowledge of God and shall have the means of that knowledge; his ways shall be known upon earth, whereas, for many ages, in Judah only was God known. Many more shall know God than did in the Old Testament times, which among the Gentiles were times of ignorance, the true God being to them an unknown God. The things of God shall in gospel times be made more plain and intelligible, and level to the capacities of the meanest, than they were while Moses had a veil upon his face. There shall be such a general knowledge of God that there shall not be so much need as had formerly been of teaching. Some take it as a hyperbolical expression (and the dulness of the Jews needed such expressions to awaken them), designed only to show that the knowledge of God in gospel times should vastly exceed that knowledge of him which they had under the law. Or perhaps it intimates that in gospel times there shall be such great plenty of public preaching, statedly and constantly, by men authorized and appointed to preach the word in season and out of season, much beyond what was under the law, that there shall be less need than there was then of fraternal teaching, by a neighbour and a brother. The priests preached but now and then, and in the temple, and to a few in comparison; but now all shall or may know God by frequenting the assemblies of Christians, wherein, through all parts of the church, the good knowledge of God shall be taught. Some give this sense of it (Mr. Gataker mentions it), That many shall have such clearness of understanding in the things of God that they may seem rather to have been taught by some immediate irradiation than by any means of instruction. In short, the things of God shall by the gospel of Christ be brought to a clearer light than ever (2 Tim. 1:10 ), and the people of God shall by the grace of Christ be brought to a clearer sight of those things than ever, Eph. 1:17, Eph. 1:18 . (4.) That, in order to all these blessings, sin shall be pardoned. This is made the reason of all the rest: For I will forgive their iniquity, will not impute that to them, nor deal with them according to the desert of that, will forgive and forget: I will remember their sin no more. It is sin that keeps good things from us, that stops the current of God’s favours; let sin betaken away by pardoning mercy, and the obstruction is removed, and divine grace runs down like a river, like a mighty stream.

To put it in a similar way, I think we can understand Jeremiah 31 in this way (copy/pasted from Sinai-2 Ruin and Redemption):

You may be familiar with the theologian Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening that became associated, in part, with his ministry. It was at the height of the Great Awakening, in July 1741, that Edwards preached a sermon called, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. God spoke to the listeners of this particular sermon in such a powerful way that Edwards was interrupted several times by people audibly moaning, and crying out, “What shall I do to be saved?” But not everyone knows that this was actually the second time Edwards preached this sermon. He preached the same sermon to his own congregation earlier, and as far as we know, there wasn't nearly the same effect. Sometimes God is pleased to work more powerfully than at other times. And this is another way that Scripture seems to contrast the old and new covenants.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the Lord tells His people about the new covenant He would make with them, contrasting it with the covenant He had made with them at Sinai, saying: “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,' declares the Lord, 'I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.'” This is truly an amazing promise; but it also leaves us wondering: Didn't God do the same thing in the Old Testament? Did God only begin to write His Law in the hearts of His people in the new covenant? Wasn't it David who wrote, “Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against you” (Psalm 119:11)? How then are we to understand the prophecy in Jeremiah? I think in this way: God did write His Law on the hearts of His old covenant people. There were indeed many in the Old Testament, such as David, who embraced God's covenant through faith. God took His Word and applied it effectually to their hearts. But, sadly, there were also countless others who remained unchanged. Moses told his whole congregation in the wilderness: “Yet to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear.” (Deuteronomy 29:4). And Isaiah cried out, “For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant within them will return. . .” (10:22). So then, though many in the old covenant embraced the message of the gospel, many more remained unchanged. Though there were periods of revival and decline in Israel, it seems on the whole that few embraced Christ.

But it would be different in the new covenant. This is the point of Jeremiah's contrast. God would write His Law on the hearts of His people on a much greater scale. So that if we think of the multitude of those whom God is now effectually drawing to himself in the new covenant Church, we have to say that those who embraced the covenant in ancient Israel were few by comparison. Just as with Edwards' sermon, the content was the same in the Old Testament; the old covenant was no less about the gospel (Hebrews 4:2,6). But the effect would be different in the new covenant, because God now applies His Word powerfully to the hearts of His people, by His Spirit, in a much greater proportion. As one writer put it: “as one star differs from another in glory, thus did the Church of the Jews, from that of Christians. They had drops, but we have the fountain. . .”
 

Grant

Puritan Board Senior
Thanks everyone for making this thread a great one in my opinion. No matter where you landed or where you currently stand, I greatly appreciate your feedback and input. May the Lord bless you as Iron sharpens Iron.:detective:
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
We fully understand how you 'take it'. Absolutely, no one in the historic church held to this belief; this is classic, pre-mil dispensationalism, i.e. Scofield, Ryrie et. al., which is slightly more that a century old.

John Macarthur, who is a classic dispensationalist, even he, disagrees with you.

No, not Dispensational theology, as I grew up in that full blown, and do know that a real Dispensational would see Israel and the Church as 2 separate Entity in economy of God, and I see the Church as being spiritual Israel, real reborn Israel now. The prophet Jeremiah prophecy was of a future that as to come yet unto them, and that was when Lord Jesus, messiah of God came in the flesh. I am a Historical premil, and see the Jewish people in same light as Spurgeon did, as being reborn as spiritual Israel at time of the Second Coming of Christ.
You seem to lump together all premils as being also Dispensational.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
To put it in a similar way, I think we can understand Jeremiah 31 in this way (copy/pasted from Sinai-2 Ruin and Redemption):

You may be familiar with the theologian Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening that became associated, in part, with his ministry. It was at the height of the Great Awakening, in July 1741, that Edwards preached a sermon called, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. God spoke to the listeners of this particular sermon in such a powerful way that Edwards was interrupted several times by people audibly moaning, and crying out, “What shall I do to be saved?” But not everyone knows that this was actually the second time Edwards preached this sermon. He preached the same sermon to his own congregation earlier, and as far as we know, there wasn't nearly the same effect. Sometimes God is pleased to work more powerfully than at other times. And this is another way that Scripture seems to contrast the old and new covenants.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the Lord tells His people about the new covenant He would make with them, contrasting it with the covenant He had made with them at Sinai, saying: “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,' declares the Lord, 'I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.'” This is truly an amazing promise; but it also leaves us wondering: Didn't God do the same thing in the Old Testament? Did God only begin to write His Law in the hearts of His people in the new covenant? Wasn't it David who wrote, “Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against you” (Psalm 119:11)? How then are we to understand the prophecy in Jeremiah? I think in this way: God did write His Law on the hearts of His old covenant people. There were indeed many in the Old Testament, such as David, who embraced God's covenant through faith. God took His Word and applied it effectually to their hearts. But, sadly, there were also countless others who remained unchanged. Moses told his whole congregation in the wilderness: “Yet to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear.” (Deuteronomy 29:4). And Isaiah cried out, “For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant within them will return. . .” (10:22). So then, though many in the old covenant embraced the message of the gospel, many more remained unchanged. Though there were periods of revival and decline in Israel, it seems on the whole that few embraced Christ.

But it would be different in the new covenant. This is the point of Jeremiah's contrast. God would write His Law on the hearts of His people on a much greater scale. So that if we think of the multitude of those whom God is now effectually drawing to himself in the new covenant Church, we have to say that those who embraced the covenant in ancient Israel were few by comparison. Just as with Edwards' sermon, the content was the same in the Old Testament; the old covenant was no less about the gospel (Hebrews 4:2,6). But the effect would be different in the new covenant, because God now applies His Word powerfully to the hearts of His people, by His Spirit, in a much greater proportion. As one writer put it: “as one star differs from another in glory, thus did the Church of the Jews, from that of Christians. They had drops, but we have the fountain. . .”
The Old Covenant was with national Israel, and not all under it benefits/provisions were actually redeemed, but under the NC, all who are in it are actually redeemed/saved by God.
 

Gforce9

Puritan Board Junior
No, not Dispensational theology, as I grew up in that full blown, and do know that a real Dispensational would see Israel and the Church as 2 separate Entity in economy of God, and I see the Church as being spiritual Israel, real reborn Israel now. The prophet Jeremiah prophecy was of a future that as to come yet unto them, and that was when Lord Jesus, messiah of God came in the flesh. I am a Historical premil, and see the Jewish people in same light as Spurgeon did, as being reborn as spiritual Israel at time of the Second Coming of Christ.
You seem to lump together all premils as being also Dispensational.

:popcorn:
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
There are reformed who hold to premil, and even some that hold to God right at end of this Age dealing again with Jewish people, so what is the problem here?
David,
The definition of dispensationalism does not change with what each person thinks to himself it means. If you believe that there will be a future people of Israel distinct from the church, that is one tenet of dispensationalism. You need not embrace all the fantasies of dispensationalism to believe dispensational things.
If "premil" means that Jesus returns and then reigns physically in Jerusalem for 1000 years, that is dispensational. The Chiliasts of old thought the same thing. You should see what Calvin said about them...
 
Last edited:

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
David,
The definition of dispensationalism does not change with what each person thinks to himself it means. If you believe that there will be a future people of Israel distinct from the church, that is one tenet of dispensationalism. You need not embrace all the fantasies of dispensationalism to believe dispensational things.
If "premil" means that Jesus returns and then reigns physically in Jerusalem for 1000 years, that is dispensational. The Chiliasts of old thought the same thing. You should see what Calvin said about them...
I believe the same as Spurgeon did regarding the Jewish people, as have others, that God will in some fashion be dealing with them once again right at the time of the Second Coming of Christ. Not Jesus setting up Israel to rule over all nations, as Dispensational viewed though. more like those Jews alive at that time will all be converted and saved by God.
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
God still having future dealings with the Jews is not Dispensational theology per say, as there are non Dispensational who have held that same view, see Spurgeon.
Let us view this logically: if the belief in future dealings with ethnic Israel is a dispensational tenet, and Spurgeon belived in it, then Spurgeon believed a dispensational tenet. That didn't make him a full-blown Dispensational--it just means he had an incorrect view of eschatology. Nearly every theologian that can be named had/has a skeleton of error or two in his closet--"the best of men are men at best," as my pastor is fond of saying.
We don't throw out all the good of Arthur Pink because he became reclusive; we don't reject all of Lloyd-Jones because he had some pentecostal notions; we don't shun J.I. Packer's good literature because he's all but swum the Tiber, nor R.C. Sproul because he had 2nd commandment issues. Who else? Dabney, Luther, Wesley, even, contributed much good to christendom even while we have concerns about aspects of their belief and practice. So why would Spurgeon be any different?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Let us view this logically: if the belief in future dealings with ethnic Israel is a dispensational tenet, and Spurgeon belived in it, then Spurgeon believed a dispensational tenet. That didn't make him a full-blown Dispensational--it just means he had an incorrect view of eschatology. Nearly every theologian that can be named had/has a skeleton of error or two in his closet--"the best of men are men at best," as my pastor is fond of saying.
We don't throw out all the good of Arthur Pink because he became reclusive; we don't reject all of Lloyd-Jones because he had some pentecostal notions; we don't shun J.I. Packer's good literature because he's all but swum the Tiber, nor R.C. Sproul because he had 2nd commandment issues. Who else? Dabney, Luther, Wesley, even, contributed much good to christendom even while we have concerns about aspects of their belief and practice. So why would Spurgeon be any different?
My point is that holding to God converting enmasse the Jews at time of Second Coming is not Dispensational per say, as Postmils see God converting many Jews, as do Covenant and Dispensational PreMils.
Just holding to that is not only Dispensational theology.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
My point is that holding to God converting enmasse the Jews at time of Second Coming is not Dispensational per say, as Postmils see God converting many Jews, as do Covenant and Dispensational PreMils.
Just holding to that is not only Dispensational theology.
The dogmatic "enmasse" bit is likely getting you into trouble.

We are straying from the OP and I suggest you start another thread about these views of yours. But, to wrap the matter up and to not proceed further in this thread, how about a more careful perspective, taken in the following order:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-have-some-questions.15251/page-3#post-198486

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-john-macarthur-here.50723/page-5#post-658373

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-john-macarthur-here.50723/page-5#post-658411

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-john-macarthur-here.50723/page-6#post-658794

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-john-macarthur-here.50723/page-6#post-658844

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-john-macarthur-here.50723/page-6#post-658874

Perhaps, after careful examination of the above and revamping what you are saying about enmasse, you might just be cooking on the front burner. This is a test of one's systematization skills (six detailed comments above needing to be boiled down cogently and succinctly), too. ;)
 

Grant

Puritan Board Senior
My point is that holding to God converting enmasse the Jews at time of Second Coming is not Dispensational per say, as Postmils see God converting many Jews, as do Covenant and Dispensational PreMils.
Just holding to that is not only Dispensational theology.
Converted jews is one thing... as all elect are converted in God’s timing both Jew and gentile before the 2nd coming.

So long as you are not maintaining that the gentile Church and Jews will be separate groups...with separate blessings. Christ is head of 1 body the Church. The true invisible church is made up of all elect who are converted Jew and Gentile alike.

Mr. Religion..... feel free to close the thread if you see fit. I feel the OP has been exhausted enough. Thank you sir.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
The major weakness I see in the article in the original post is the "covenant or grace or salvation as justification" throughout.

It is true that the only fruition that man may have with God is by His condescension but I think the breaking up of the Covenants and the notion that the CoG is not in place doesn't reckon with the issue of the corruption aspect of the Fall.

The Fall not only makes mankind guilty of Adam's sin but corrupt in his whole person (sinner) and utterly unable to obey God.

The necessity for another Mediator in Christ is not merely to deal with guilt but power over sin and death in the ultimate sense.

Before the Fall, Adam had a natural ability to not only believe God and have faith in Him but also to fulfill the commands of God.

After the Fall, mankind lost both the natural moral ability to obey God and is utterly hostile to Him.

If the COG is not operative and the COW is in place then dealing with man's guilt in Covenants before the Fall (because some aspects of Christ' redemption are worked backward) does not itself deal with the bondage to sin in which fallen humanity is incapable of obeying God's command.

The CoW is a relationship in Adam. Guilty, sinner, dead. To speak of a CoW as operative for God's people after the Fall is to say that dead people are justified. Abraham believed how? If Christ did not purchase His faith and His work did not free him from bondage to believe then he did so naturally?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top