Covenant of Grace

[Grant]

I have some questions for you:
1- How did the O.T. saint come to believe in the promise? Was it his own will? When the H.S. "left" (oh, I don't know, to go on vacation or to check up on someone else?!?), how did that saint continue to believe? Did sanctification cease for that period of time?
2- How does your church treat people in the pew that you don't deem "saved" (what if someone accidentally forgot the regeneration goggles next to the coffee pot at home?)?

What is strange is that I think you both probably voted the same way on the Poll.

The author of Hebrews though would see the NC as transcending the OC, being much superior to any prior workings between God and man.

David I do think you are seeing too much discontinuity (at least if you voted for the first option in the Poll), which would very easy for us all to do if we ONLY had the book of Hebrews (even though I feel Hebrews helps tremendously for having a biblical CT), but we don’t. The CoG and the benefits thereof can be traced through all Post-Fall covenants in some form or fashion.... in the N.C. we just see all of the realities revealed and on display much more clearly. We also obtain a much less painful (physically) covenantal sign (#whenisthelasttimeyousharpenedyourcircumcissuonrock).

 

[Scott Bushey]

It is very frustrating having to repeat biblical truth to someone who can’t see passed their own thoughts. #poor_dialog

 

[Grant]

It is very frustrating having to repeat biblical truth to someone who can’t see passed their own thoughts. #poor_dialog

Well let’s still try to be gracious to one another. After all I am sure we all, just like the early disciples, do not see things that seem clear to others. Jesus repeatedly taught of his death and resurrection but the disciples always missed it for a time. I am not saying that David is acting like Peter prior to the rooster crow!, but rather I am lovingly reminding us all that as frustrated we might or can be... God is the only one who can be perfectly frustratedBecause of our stiff necks . So let’s extend more patience with each other, even when WE may think it is not deserved.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Grant,
For the record, this is not a new issue and I have been more than gracious. It is painful having a person constantly mucking up the discussion, time and time again with things that have been discussed, ad infinitum in the past. It clogs the threads up. Constant derails. No interactions w/ things posed-just responses. This is a discussion board; dialog is the exchanging of thoughts w/ responses.

 

[Grant]

Grant,
For the record, this is not a new issue and I have been more than gracious. It is painful having a person constantly mucking up the discussion, time and time again with things that have been discussed, ad infinitum in the past. It clogs the threads up. Constant derails. No interactions w/ things posed-just responses. This is a discussion board; dialog is the exchanging of thoughts w/ responses.

Duly noted.

 

[Cymro]

David, it was necessary that the OT believer had the indwelling Spirit in order to be quickened into life, and His continuing presence for sanctification and perseverance. Otherwise, he would live independently of the Spirit of God, which is an impossibility, and also would make him an Arminian! And He would also need a High Priest not a shadow of one, and Melchizedek who was both Priest and King was an O.T. manifestation of Christ. “Without father or mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God: abideth a Priest continually.” There had to be a real Highpriest in the heavenlies, for the the priests according to the law “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” Representations of the reality, the substance not the shadow.

 

[Dachaser]

David, it was necessary that the OT believer had the indwelling Spirit in order to be quickened into life, and His continuing presence for sanctification and perseverance. Otherwise, he would live independently of the Spirit of God, which is an impossibility, and also would make him an Arminian! And He would also need a High Priest not a shadow of one, and Melchizedek who was both Priest and King was an O.T. manifestation of Christ. “Without father or mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God: abideth a Priest continually.” There had to be a real Highpriest in the heavenlies, for the the priests according to the law “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” Representations of the reality, the substance not the shadow.

Jesus was not andinstarting in that capacity though as the High priest until he had come as the Messiah first, accomplished salvation work, and then on the ascension started to work as the High Priest. There was something fundementally different and better under the NC relationship with God we now all experience, as the OT believers were looking to that time of messiah coming. Matthew 13:17.

 

[Dachaser]

What is strange is that I think you both probably voted the same way on the Poll.


David I do think you are seeing too much discontinuity (at least if you voted for the first option in the Poll), which would very easy for us all to do if we ONLY had the book of Hebrews (even though I feel Hebrews helps tremendously for having a biblical CT), but we don’t. The CoG and the benefits thereof can be traced through all Post-Fall covenants in some form or fashion.... in the N.C. we just see all of the realities revealed and on display much more clearly. We also obtain a much less painful (physically) covenantal sign (#whenisthelasttimeyousharpenedyourcircumcissuonrock).

I tend to see the Mosaic Covenant as being mainly rooted in the Land promises and to having physical blessings based upon conditional obedience of the people. Would that actually make me more of the third answer to the survey?

 

[Dachaser]

Well let’s still try to be gracious to one another. After all I am sure we all, just like the early disciples, do not see things that seem clear to others. Jesus repeatedly taught of his death and resurrection but the disciples always missed it for a time. I am not saying that David is acting like Peter prior to the rooster crow!, but rather I am lovingly reminding us all that as frustrated we might or can be... God is the only one who can be perfectly frustratedBecause of our stiff necks . So let’s extend more patience with each other, even when WE may think it is not deserved.

Galatians 6:2 comes to mind here.

 

[Grant]

I tend to see the Mosaic Covenant as being mainly rooted in the Land promises and to having physical blessings based upon conditional obedience of the people. Would that actually make me more of the third answer to the survey?

I may not be the best equipped to answer that, but In my humble opinion based on your comments on this thread.... I would say your current vote (option 1) does harmonize with your posts on this thread. So number 2 or 3 would be a better fit unless you fully come to the Dark side (“David....*15 second smokers cough*....I am your father”).
But remember, we have NT evidence that Moses preached Christ to the OT saints and therefore they needed faith in Christ and fruit bearing (works) of their faith in the CoG. That is the same thing NT saints were called to do. One difference being OT saints called to look forward and NT saints called to backwards.

 

[Dachaser]

The Mosaic Covenant to me seems to be mainly though works related and driven, as in obey the commands of God, and He will make sure to bless you physically and financially, but disobey Him, and He allows the Devour into your life then.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

'Hands up' was probably a bad description; they did however, have a benefit that we don't. That being, what I've said above.

Scott, I am sympathetic to your concern that some want to see a major discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. But it is hard to read Heb 1 and the whole of Hebrews without seeing that the major benefit we have is that Christ has now come in all His blessd fullness. Even Witsius' beloved Enconomy of the Covenants has a chapter "the defects of the Old Covenant".

 

[Dachaser]

Scott, I am sympathetic to your concern that some want to see a major discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. But it is hard to read Heb 1 and the whole of Hebrews without seeing that the major benefit we have is that Christ has now come in all His blessd fullness. Even Witsius' beloved Enconomy of the Covenants has a chapter "the defects of the Old Covenant".

We are now placed under a more sure, and superior Covenant relationship, as Jesus stated that would happen right then as he shed His blood, and the rest of the NT sets forth how much more glorious the NC is when contrasted to the old One.

 

[Scott Bushey]

without seeing that the major benefit we have is that Christ has now come in all His blessd fullness.

Stephen,
First of all, I never said we don't have a 'major benefit' in Christ. In post 66 w/ David, he said:

"We have all spiritual blessings now in Christ, as those were not all there for the OT saints who had been saved by the Lord."

I asked him, 'what might those be?'

My point being, we have the reality, for sure. But in our age, we have a very similar circumstance as the OT saint before the manifestation-them looking forward and us, now looking back. As far as the spiritual blessings go, I don't see too much of a difference.

I asked in an earlier reply to someone:
"Let me ask u a question: How is it that on one hand the Mosaic is a gracious covenant, i.e. men were saved under gospel preaching during that age, yet the Apostle Paul calls the decalogue a "ministration of death". How can it be both?"

How would u answer this question as it will show me how you understand (even) what Witsius meant?

 

[Scott Bushey]

We are now placed under a more sure, and superior Covenant relationship

The NC is an admin of the C of G. All men, under the C of G are saved in the same fashion-all are filled w/ the HS, else they apostatize the faith (immediately). W/out the HS, there can be no sanctification. The NC is the result of the C of R (in it's fullness). Christ dying is not a watershed per se; The blood of Christ washes over all the OT saints from Gen 3. If you struggle with this truth, you are struggling with God. When Christ proclaimed, 'it is finished', He was referring to that which He started in the gospel after the fall. To deny this is to deny the gospel.

Jesus stated that would happen right then as he shed His blood

This is to be seen as the consuming moment in time, when the C of R and the C of G, are fulfilled. 'It is finished', in contrast to that which began thousands of years earlier.

NT sets forth how much more glorious the NC is when contrasted to the old One.

The 'old' is referring to those who were remaining in the internal side of the C of W's and the external side of the C of G, i.e. the local church. The law brings death! How can a law bring death, (consider all those under the Mosaic), if the sum of that part were elect, regenerated people who were in Christ (in the C of G)?

 

[Ben Zartman]

Ben,

Thanks for contributing. No apology needed, this has been a great thread. I agree I have come across two different types of reformed baptist with very different CT.

The 1689federalism site used to have a chart comparing 1689 federalism and the other RB view(of which you speak) of CT, but i cannot find it on there site anymore, nor can i recall what they entitled it.
But what I do remember is that the only (using loosely so everyone calm down) difference between the “vanilla RB” and Westminster CT is the visible church membership (children of believing parents) and the sign application.

To which I say.... “Your almost there!!”...haha respectfully

As a former baptist and when I held to the 2LBC I held your view of CT and disagreed with the 1689federalist. However, those guys seem to claim to have the more historical RB view.

They do claim to have the more historical view, but it is common for people in desperate struggle for an untenable position to try to round up dead guys to support them. I just read a book by a dispensationalist who cited several church fathers to support the claim that dispensationalism was the orthodox view of the early church!...good grief, as Charlie Brown would have said.
However, there are more differences between the Vanilla RB position and Westminster CT than just visible church membership--or rather, that one goes deeper than just "who is a member". It has to do with "Who is in covenant with God?" RBs believe that in the New Covenant (the final expression of the CoG), only those who are regenerate are in covenant with God. While covenant inclusion was by physical birth in the OT, it is by spiritual birth in the NT. The Nation of Israel, you see, while being God's chosen people, was an imperfect representation of what God's chosen people would look like later, when physical birth and nationality mattered not at all; when the New Birth, and to be the spiritual progeny of Abraham is what matters.
Of course, even in the OT, it was the circumcision of the heart that mattered; faith was required for regeneration, and saints were indwelt by God's spirit. But in the NT, the types and shadows--even the type of covenant inclusion by physical birth, which did not avail if God did not grant repentance and faith, have been abrogated. The covenantal sign is now given to infants in Christ--those who have just been Born Again, and are adopted into God's family, the Israel of God.
As to mode, I think immersion is best, but whether to dip, sprinkle or douse with a hose is immaterial. If mode could make or break the sign, then we could really get tied up in knots about the Lord's Supper! (which I understand some people do.....but that's for another thread).
A blessed Lord's Day to you.

 

[Ben Zartman]

The Mosaic Covenant to me seems to be mainly though works related and driven, as in obey the commands of God, and He will make sure to bless you physically and financially, but disobey Him, and He allows the Devour into your life then.

David, do you not see that the Mosaic Law was telling God's people how to live? It was God graciously giving them instructions for how to behave, before Him and before others. And can you not see how full of grace it is? How many times in the Law do you read, "...and if a man sin, and commit a trespass..." followed by a solution--a way to make peace with God, and not only that, but a way that illustrated the real sacrifice that was to come, Messiah himself. All though the OT, more than just offering temporal calamities and temporal blessings for good or bad behavior, Jehovah is offering eternal life, is promising grace unmerited, is telling them of the glories that lie in store. The Temple, the sacrifices, the feasts, the land itself, were all pictures of better things to come--a once for all sacrifice; God's presence with His people in all assemblies, not just in Jerusalem; a city not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens; freedom from sin and its corruption--what glory the OT saints had! It was about far more than just rewarding good behavior and punishing bad.

 

[Grant]

They do claim to have the more historical view, but it is common for people in desperate struggle for an untenable position to try to round up dead guys to support them. I just read a book by a dispensationalist who cited several church fathers to support the claim that dispensationalism was the orthodox view of the early church!...good grief, as Charlie Brown would have said.
However, there are more differences between the Vanilla RB position and Westminster CT than just visible church membership--or rather, that one goes deeper than just "who is a member". It has to do with "Who is in covenant with God?" RBs believe that in the New Covenant (the final expression of the CoG), only those who are regenerate are in covenant with God. While covenant inclusion was by physical birth in the OT, it is by spiritual birth in the NT. The Nation of Israel, you see, while being God's chosen people, was an imperfect representation of what God's chosen people would look like later, when physical birth and nationality mattered not at all; when the New Birth, and to be the spiritual progeny of Abraham is what matters.
Of course, even in the OT, it was the circumcision of the heart that mattered; faith was required for regeneration, and saints were indwelt by God's spirit. But in the NT, the types and shadows--even the type of covenant inclusion by physical birth, which did not avail if God did not grant repentance and faith, have been abrogated. The covenantal sign is now given to infants in Christ--those who have just been Born Again, and are adopted into God's family, the Israel of God.
As to mode, I think immersion is best, but whether to dip, sprinkle or douse with a hose is immaterial. If mode could make or break the sign, then we could really get tied up in knots about the Lord's Supper! (which I understand some people do.....but that's for another thread).
A blessed Lord's Day to you.

You the same brother.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

How would u answer this question as it will show me how you understand (even) what Witsius meant?

Scott, I formally agree with you about many things so no big difference. My concern was where you implied believers in the Old Covenant had better 'things' than those in the New Covenant. But Old Covenant believers would "bind the sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar" Psalm 118:27. New Covenant believers have an advantage in that Christ has fully come; we do not need to go back to the types and shadows. But same gospel, same blessing of the Triune God, same Covenant of Grace etc.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jesus was not andinstarting [sic] in that capacity though as the High priest until he had come as the Messiah first, accomplished salvation work, and then on the ascension started to work as the High Priest.

Psalm 110 says that Jesus has always been a Priest:


1 The Lord said unto my Lord,

Sit thou at my right hand,

Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2 The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion:

Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness

From the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent,

Thou art a priest *for ever

After the order of Melchizedek.

5 The Lord at thy right hand

Shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies;

He shall wound the heads over many countries.

7 He shall drink of the brook in the way:

Therefore shall he lift up the head.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ps 110:1–7.

*5769. עוֹלָם olam or

עֹלָם olam (761d); from an unused word; long duration, antiquity, futurity:—ages(1), all successive(1), always(1), ancient(13), ancient times(3), continual(1), days of old(1), eternal(2), eternity(3), ever(10), Everlasting(2), everlasting(110), forever(136), forever and ever(1), forever*(70), forevermore*(1), lasting(1), long(2), long ago(3), long past(1), long time(3), never*(17), old(11), permanent(10), permanently(1), perpetual(29), perpetually(1).

Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).

Then of course, there is the argument whether or not Melchisidec was a theophany:

7 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 7.

 

[Scott Bushey]

you implied believers in the Old Covenant had better 'things' than those in the New Covenant.

Both groups had special blessings...It all depends on how you define, 'better'. When you consider God speaking directly to His people or theophanies and actual living prophets, these things are surely blessings that we do no any longer have.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The 6 and 7th ch of Hebrews makes reference to the priestly office of Christ; that He was a "Priest forever' according to the office of Melchizedek. In ch 7 we can see:

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament (or covenant). 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them gto the uttermost hthat come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 7:22–25.

It would seem odd if this passage were speaking of the NC and not the C of G in general.

Poole:
"22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

This brings in the consequent on ver. 20. As much excellency as was in God’s oath constituting, so much there must be in the office constituted. The Aaronical priesthood, by God’s constitution, was excellent; but Christ’s is much more so, being by God’s oath made personal and everlasting, relating to the best covenant; so as the Hebrews had the greatest reason to renounce Aaron’s, and to cleave to Christ’s for salvation. He being God-man, is a Surety, one that bindeth himself for another, to see something paid or performed, to give security for another; and is proper to him as a Priest, Job 17:3; Psal. 119:122: Prov. 6:1. In the Mosaical economy the priests were typical sureties, or undertakers for the people; so Aaron, as a surety, was sent by Moses to stand between the living and the dead, when God was cutting off those sinners, Numb. 16:46, 48. The Spirit interprets this Surety to be a Mediator, chap. 8:6, which is the general comprehensive name of all his offices: as he gives all from God to us in and by his promises, he is the Testator fulfilling them, chap. 9:15, 16; as he gives satisfaction to God for us, and returns our duty performed with the incense of his merits, he is our Surety; which merit of his resulted from his perfect obedience to the whole law and will of God, and from the full satisfaction he made to God by his death for our sins, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13. A better testament; the gospel covenant, described chap. 8:10–12, and referreth to what the Lord foretold of it, Jer. 31:33, 34, which is better than the Mosaical for perspicuity, freeness, fulness, spirituality, and the Spirit promised in it for its ratification by the death of Christ, and its perpetuity: see chap. 8:8, 9, 11.

Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 3 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 840.

The gospel economy dates back to gen 3; the death of Christ was the consummating moment and 'ratification'.

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 9:11–14.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Both groups had special blessings...It all depends on how you define, 'better'.

I define 'better' how the book of Hebrews defines better

When you consider God speaking directly to His people or theophanies and actual living prophets, these things are surely blessings that we do no any longer have.

I would be careful with this argument; it implies that our full cannon of scripture is 'inferior' to God speaking directly to His people etc. Surely not! The fact that we have a full cannon is surely the greatest blessing any saint can have. There were indeed types and shadows associated with Old Covenant saints.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Sir,
I don't quite understand your posture. You continue to speculate on things that I have said. I believe I have already made note of the comparisons. I have never said that the NT saint lacks anything, only that the OT saint has peculiar blessings that we don't have and vice versa. Both time periods are significant. I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth, speculate on what I believe, etc. It's a bit obtuse, in my opinion.

"I define 'better' how the book of Hebrews defines better"

The B of H's speaks of a 'better covenant'-I address that above in post 112. Feel free to interact with that if you like.

 

[Scott Bushey]

For clarity: I believe the tension here is rooted in the chronology of this 'better covenant'. I believe that the NC is almost synonymous with the C of G; I believe that the 'better' started in Gen 3; Christ was Priest (even) then. I believe the reference to the opposite of better is rooted in the writer of Hebrews railing against those in the external side of the C of G and the internal side of the C of W's still. The Mosaic is a gracious covenant; surely the writer is not railing against those justified by faith alone, in Christ alone, etc. etc.

Having said that, how is it 'better'? Yes, we have the canon! Yes, Christ was manifested and consummated that which was ordained in the C of R; yes He is seated at the r/ hand of the Father-even now ruling. The reality has arrived. But, the 'better' really is the fact that we are justified by faith alone and that was relevant even back to Adam.

 

[Grant]

I hope all of you have had/and are having a blessed Lord’s Day. Now let’s try to get back to the OP if we can......
Stephen and a Scott I think both of you are arguing for the same view of CT (mostly) but rather each is defending going into the ditch on the right and/or left of Option 1 in the Oringal Poll. I suspect you both probably voted the same way.

No let’s see if we can steer back slightly....

Truthfully....I have not studied much of Charles Spurgeon, a question for some you you more well read in the man (I am curious).... How do you think Spurgeon would of have voted on the original poll?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth

I deny I did this. I was simply replying to an earlier comment:

Both groups had special blessings...It all depends on how you define, 'better'. When you consider God speaking directly to His people or theophanies and actual living prophets, these things are surely blessings that we do no any longer have.

You do imply the Old Covenant saints have better blessings which was why i raised the concern.

But I agree with your clarification that we need to define 'blessings'.

 

[Grant]

I deny I did this. I was simply replying to an earlier comment:

You do imply the Old Covenant saints have better blessings which was why i raised the concern.

But I agree with your clarification that we need to define 'blessings'.

Stephen can we put this to rest already? All of your comments on this thread (with the exception of 1 which was still not about the OP I think) have been in taking issue with Scott......so can your quibble be Put to rest...please sir.

Since you hold to a baptist CT do you have any insight in Spurgeon’s view On CT?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

so can your quibble be Put to rest...please sir.

A concern had been raised about me personally so I did a brief response. But very happy to leave the matter there.

Since you hold to a baptist CT

Now you have started a quibble Who says I now hold to a Baptist CT? I have posted a few posts recently "questioning" my Baptist CT (I have only made recent defences when some have 'equated' Baptist CT with a form of dispensationalism - I did this to clarify a matter only). I removed the term Reformed Baptist from my signature some time ago.

do you have any insight in Spurgeon’s view On CT?

This might help https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/

 

[Grant]

A concern had been raised about me personally so I did a brief response. But very happy to leave the matter there.

Now you have started a quibble Who says I now hold to a Baptist CT? I have posted a few posts recently "questioning" my Baptist CT (I have only made recent defences when some have 'equated' Baptist CT with a form of dispensationalism - I did this to clarify a matter only). I removed the term Reformed Baptist from my signature some time ago.

This might help https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/

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.

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.

But again thank you for that Wordpress article... I could no longer find the diagram used in the 1689federlalist site, and it was helpful.