"Faith was not the condition of the Mosaic Covenant"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
What do I make of the statements, ""Faith was not the condition of the Mosaic Covenant"?

The fuller quote by a defender of 1689 Federalism is:

"...faith was not the condition of the MC. In fact, Paul contrast the difference between faith and works in Romans 10. The MC said do and live while they NC says believe and live.

No member of the CoG can be eternally condemned as a covenant breaker because the federal head of the covenant of grace has promised he will loose none of those given to him by His Father. The MC, however, is completely characterized by covenant breakers, and this was why there was the need for a new and better covenant (Heb. 8)."
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Faith may not have been a condition of the Mosaic Covenant, but it was implied that faith will be an integral part of it. A look at the Decalogue brings this to light. Faith is implied to have no other gods but the LORD, because faith will result in willing worship of God. Faith is implied to honor the Sabbath properly (especially the Sabbath).
 

JTB.SDG

Puritan Board Junior
Pergamum, read this carefully if you can, because it really helps to explain a lot of things about all your questions.

Faith was the condition/requirement of the Mosaic Covenant. You saw this in your study of Romans 10:6ff, and how when Paul wants to talk about the righteousness which is based on faith, he actually quotes Deuteronomy 30 to describe it. IE, Paul is quoting THE LAW to teach us about the righteousness that is BY FAITH. Conclusion: The Law actually commanded faith. This is the historical Puritan/Reformed Covenantal view of that text. I ALSO believe you see this same principle in other passages in the Law. Deuteronomy 4:1 says: "listen. . .so that you may live." This is echoed in other places in Deuteronomy as well. Compare that language with Isaiah 55:3, which is speaking of the Covenant of Grace: "Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, according to the faithful mercies shown to David." Compare it also to what Paul says in Galatians 3: "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?" I take Deuteronomy 4:1 and many other places in Deuteronomy as GOSPEL COMMANDS: Listen and live = Believe and be saved. THIS is why (among other reasons) we can say that the Mosaic Covenant belonged to the Covenant of Grace.

Having said that, what do you do with passages like later in Galatians 3, 3:10-12 which definitely contrasts two very different systems and ways to life: 1) obedience, and 2) faith? Or, we pointed out how in Romans 10 Paul actually goes back to a passage in the Law to prove the righteousness that is by faith; fine and dandy, but at the end of the day you still have a definite contrast there between the two ways of obtaining life. Here's what you do with it. I referred to this in another post but I'll repeat it here. This is really, really, really important for understanding the Law and the Mosaic Covenant. The Law can (and ought to be) understood in two very different ways: 1) largely taken; 2) strictly taken. Largely taken includes the promises of Christ that are in the Decalogue; and ALSO includes the requirement of FAITH that is in the Decalogue. But STRICTLY taken, it includes none of those things, and only refers to the Moral Law as repeated at Sinai IN THE FORM of the Covenant of Works: Do this and live. Again, the best example of this is Romans 3:21: "But now apart from the Law [STRICTLY TAKEN], the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law [LARGELY TAKEN] and the prophets." Even the Law itself testifies that the righteousness of God comes to us apart from the Law--that is--apart from the Law as completely abstracted from it's natural, organic gracious context (which is why again we take the Mosaic Covenant as belonging to the Covenant of Grace). Does this make sense?

So why does the Law in its strict sense (Lev.18; Deut.29 etc) tell us "Do this and live" while at the same time in the background there is also the command given in the Law: "Believe and live"? God is not trying to confuse us. There is a purpose to it all. The whole purpose of the STRICT abstracted commanded in the Law (Do and live) is MEANT to drive us to the Law as LARGELY taken--that is, as it reveals Christ in the ceremonies and the sacrifices, and beckons us, since we are totally unable to do and live, to come to Christ as revealed in the Law largely taken, that we might truly BELIEVE and live. Hope this makes sense and helps. I can further clarify anything if needed.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Faith may not have been a condition of the Mosaic Covenant, but it was implied that faith will be an integral part of it. A look at the Decalogue brings this to light. Faith is implied to have no other gods but the LORD, because faith will result in willing worship of God. Faith is implied to honor the Sabbath properly (especially the Sabbath).

Agreed. Consider the preface to the 10 Commandments: "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

Maybe one could say that faith is a 'pre-condition'.

Waldron distinguishes between 'conditions' and 'required responses'. Maybe one could say that faith is not a 'required response' of the Mosaic Covenant, but how can it not be a condition?
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Freshman
which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt

That was a typological redemption that did not require saving faith on the part of the one being redeemed. Thus nothing can be concluded from that about saving faith in the Mosaic Covenant.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
That was a typological redemption that did not require saving faith on the part of the one being redeemed. Thus nothing can be concluded from that about saving faith in the Mosaic Covenant.
God was at work among His Covenant people of Israel not in the exact sane fashion as he was/is now with his church, correct?
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Freshman
Saving faith was not a condition either to be in the Mosaic covenant or to receive its blessings, as it is in the New.

Of course, all men everywhere are "required" to repent and believe.
 

Douglas P.

Puritan Board Freshman
What do I make of the statements, ""Faith was not the condition of the Mosaic Covenant"?

The fuller quote by a defender of 1689 Federalism is:

"...faith was not the condition of the MC. In fact, Paul contrast the difference between faith and works in Romans 10. The MC said do and live while they NC says believe and live.

No member of the CoG can be eternally condemned as a covenant breaker because the federal head of the covenant of grace has promised he will loose none of those given to him by His Father. The MC, however, is completely characterized by covenant breakers, and this was why there was the need for a new and better covenant (Heb. 8)."

Perg,

I've enjoyed reading through all of your recent threads on this topic, its created some good discussion!

To your question, Paul seems to make it very clear in Gal 3 (amongst other places as well) that the defining characteristic of the Law (mosaic covenant) is that it is a works covenant not a faith covenant. I'm curious to know the problem you have with the 'defenders' quote is, if you do have one?
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Freshman
To elaborate, here is A.W. Pink quoting Thomas Scott (a popular 18th century commentator)
A National Covenant
“The national covenant with Israel was here (Ex. 19:5) meant; the charter upon which they were incorporated, as a people, under the government of Jehovah. It was an engagement of God, to give Israel possession of Canaan, and to protect them in it: to render the land fruitful, and the nation victorious and prosperous, and to perpetuate His oracles and ordinances among them; so long as they did not, as a people, reject His authority, apostatize to idolatry, and tolerate open wickedness. These things constitute a forfeiture of the covenant; as their national rejection of Christ did afterwards. True believers among them were personally dealt with according to the Covenant of Grace, even as true Christians now are; and unbelievers were under the Covenant of Works, and liable to condemnation by it, as at present: yet, the national covenant was not strictly either the one or the other, but had something in it of the nature of each.

“The national covenant did not refer to the final salvation of individuals: nor was it broken by the disobedience, or even idolatry, of any number of them, provided this was not sanctioned or tolerated by public authority. It was indeed a type of the covenant made with true believers in Christ Jesus, as were all the transactions with Israel; but, like other types, it ‘had not the very image,’ but only ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ When, therefore, as a nation, they had broken this covenant, the Lord declared that He would make ‘a new covenant with Israel, putting His law,’ not only in their hands, but ‘in their inward parts’; and ‘writing it,’ not upon tables of stone, ‘but in their hearts; forgiving their iniquity and remembering their sin no more’ (Jer. 31:32-34; Heb. 8:7-12; 10:16, 17). The Israelites were under a dispensation of mercy, and had outward privileges and great advantages in various ways for salvation: yet, like professing Christians, the most of them rested in these, and looked no further. The outward covenant was made with the Nation, entitling them to outward advantages, upon the condition of outward national obedience; and the covenant of Grace was ratified personally with true believers, and sealed and secured spiritual blessings to them, by producing a holy disposition of heart, and spiritual obedience to the Divine law. In case Israel kept the covenant, the Lord promised that they should be to Him ‘a peculiar treasure.’ ‘All the earth’ (Ex. 19:5) being the Lord’s, He might have chosen any other people instead of Israel: and this implied that, as His choice of them was gratuitous, so if they rejected His covenant, He would reject them, and communicate their privileges to others; as indeed He hath done, since the introduction of the Christian dispensation” (Thomas Scott, The Holy Bible with Explanatory Notes).

The above quotation contains the most lucid, comprehensive, and yet simple analysis of the Sinaitic covenant which we have met with in all our reading. It draws a clear line of distinction between God’s dealings with Israel as a nation, and with individuals in it. It shows the correct position of the everlasting covenant of grace and the Adamic covenant of works in relation to the Mosaic dispensation. All were born under the condemnation of their federal head (Adam), and while they continued unregenerate and in unbelief, were under the wrath of God; whereas God’s elect, upon believing, were treated by Him then, as individuals, in precisely the same way as they are now. Scott brings out clearly the character, the scope, the design, and the limitation of the Sinaitic covenant: its character was a supplementary combination of law and mercy; its scope was national; its design was to regulate the temporal affairs of Israel under the divine government; its limitation was determined by Israel’s obedience or disobedience. The typical nature of it—the hardest point to elucidate—is also allowed. We advise the interested student to reread the last four paragraphs.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Perg,

I've enjoyed reading through all of your recent threads on this topic, its created some good discussion!

To your question, Paul seems to make it very clear in Gal 3 (amongst other places as well) that the defining characteristic of the Law (mosaic covenant) is that it is a works covenant not a faith covenant. I'm curious to know the problem you have with the 'defenders' quote is, if you do have one?

You are quite right. Gal's and Hebrews both make this distinction that the Mosaic covenant was a part of the Covenant of Works-at least, in my opinion, their language is consistent in that. However, technically speaking, it is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, hence, it is a gracious covenant and not a works based covenant. It cannot be both!

My personal opinion is that the decalogue was a part of the C of W's. I describe this this way:

Just like the Noahic Covenant is more than the ark, the Covenant of Works is more than the 10 commandments. Think of the C of W’s as a car; The commandments were the engine and gas of the covenant of works. The fall was the proverbial pothole that rendered the axel inoperative, making the whole of it inoperative. God took the engine and gas and gave that portion to Moses, leaving the defunct chassis behind. The spirit of the C of W’s was in the law. God gave that to Israel. He did not republish the C of W’s; why would He need to do that?

The Mosaic is a gracious covenant, to attempt to press into the decalogue an idea of republication is like trying to say an 1958 Edsel is the same as a 911 Carrera. Yea, they are both cars, but completely different in so many ways.

It seems as if Westminster uses the same rationale as they refer to the decalogue as a 'covenant of works'.

Westminster uses language that helps in their confession and catechism:

In Ch 7:2 "II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."

Ch 19: I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

Ch 19:6 VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience.

In the Larger catechism: Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

I reject republication.

Saving faith was not a condition either to be in the Mosaic covenant or to receive its blessings, as it is in the New.

Of course, all men everywhere are "required" to repent and believe.


Brandon,
If I am unsderstanding you, do you believe that the Mosaic is a free standing covenant-neither an administration of the C of W's or the C of G?
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Freshman
do you believe that the Mosaic is a free standing covenant-neither an administration of the C of W's or the C of G?

Correct. This is known as the subservient covenant view.

(Note: be careful to understand precisely in what sense I mean it was not an administration of the CoG: I mean that it was not the CoG. It did reveal the CoG and place the gospel before people in types and shadows.)
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Correct. This is known as the subservient covenant view.

(Note: be careful to understand precisely in what sense I mean it was not an administration of the CoG: I mean that it was not the CoG. It did reveal the CoG and place the gospel before people in types and shadows.)

So, do u hold to the idea that there are more than 2 covenants in time? The reformed view is that there are 2 covenants in time-C of W's and C of G.
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, that is the whole point. I believe Westminster is incorrect to claim there are only 2 covenants. Once again, the subservient covenant view was a rejection of that idea. It argued the Mosaic Covenant was neither the Adamic Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace. Samuel Bolton has a good discussion of the issue here https://www.monergism.com/true-bounds-christian-freedom-ebook-samuel-bolton

See also John Owen's defense of the subservient covenant view in his Hebrews 8 commentary.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
What is the Mosaic subservient to? The term implies a larger scope that it is related to. Like a son is subservient to his father.

I will look at the links later....just asking.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Yes, that is the whole point. I believe Westminster is incorrect to claim there are only 2 covenants. Once again, the subservient covenant view was a rejection of that idea. It argued the Mosaic Covenant was neither the Adamic Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace. Samuel Bolton has a good discussion of the issue here https://www.monergism.com/true-bounds-christian-freedom-ebook-samuel-bolton

See also John Owen's defense of the subservient covenant view in his Hebrews 8 commentary.
How would the term Administrations of grace tie into the different Covenants in the Bible then?
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Freshman
What is the Mosaic subservient to?

The gospel/Covenant of Grace.

How would the term Administrations of grace tie into the different Covenants in the Bible then?

When Westminster and the reformed speak of the Mosaic or any other covenant being an "administration of the covenant of grace" what they mean is that the Mosaic covenant is the covenant of grace. It is the covenant of grace as it was administered during a certain period of time.

If, on the other hand, someone is using the phrase "administration of grace" to simply mean that the gospel was revealed to OT saints so that they could place their faith in it, then as 2LBCF confesses in 8.6
Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent’s head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and to-day and for ever. (1 Corinthians 4:10; Hebrews 4:2; 1 Peter 1:10, 11; Revelation 13:8; Hebrews 13:8)

For a longer explanation, please see the "Long Reply" section here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/re-did-the-covenant-of-grace-begin-in-the-new-covenant/
 

Douglas P.

Puritan Board Freshman
You are quite right. Gal's and Hebrews both make this distinction that the Mosaic covenant was a part of the Covenant of Works-at least, in my opinion, their language is consistent in that. However, technically speaking, it is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, hence, it is a gracious covenant and not a works based covenant. It cannot be both!

My personal opinion is that the decalogue was a part of the C of W's. I describe this this way:

Just like the Noahic Covenant is more than the ark, the Covenant of Works is more than the 10 commandments. Think of the C of W’s as a car; The commandments were the engine and gas of the covenant of works. The fall was the proverbial pothole that rendered the axel inoperative, making the whole of it inoperative. God took the engine and gas and gave that portion to Moses, leaving the defunct chassis behind. The spirit of the C of W’s was in the law. God gave that to Israel. He did not republish the C of W’s; why would He need to do that?

The Mosaic is a gracious covenant, to attempt to press into the decalogue an idea of republication is like trying to say an 1958 Edsel is the same as a 911 Carrera. Yea, they are both cars, but completely different in so many ways.

It seems as if Westminster uses the same rationale as they refer to the decalogue as a 'covenant of works'.

Westminster uses language that helps in their confession and catechism:

In Ch 7:2 "II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."

Ch 19: I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

Ch 19:6 VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience.

In the Larger catechism: Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

I reject republication.




Brandon,
If I am unsderstanding you, do you believe that the Mosaic is a free standing covenant-neither an administration of the C of W's or the C of G?

Scott,

Thanks for the reply. To be clear, I don't think the Mosaic Covenant was of the same substance of the covenant of works. The mosaic covenant was a covenant of works, not a republication of the covenant of works (I would still call myself a republicationist though, of the subservient kind). The Covenant of Works was only with Adam and had an eschatological aim. The covenant of works with Moses was sub-eschatological and had a Christo-typological aim (to try and coin a phrase).

From what I can tell, I'm very much in agreement with Brandon here, at least on this point. However, still very much a paedobaptist.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Doug,
If u read what I've posted I agree that the Mosaic is NOT of the 'same substance', it was the juice in the C of W's I.e. The Decalogue. Brandon's view is contra-reformed and anti-Westminster. * No disrespect Brandon
 

Douglas P.

Puritan Board Freshman
the Covenant of Works is more than the 10 commandments. Think of the C of W’s as a car; The commandments were the engine and gas of the covenant of works.

Scott I'm not much of a car guy so I don't know if I'm really following the analogy, but when/where is the 10 commandments part of the covenant of works? Are you referring to 19.1-2?

(I'm assuming the Covenant of Works you're speaking of is the covenant that God made with Adam.)
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
The gospel/Covenant of Grace.



When Westminster and the reformed speak of the Mosaic or any other covenant being an "administration of the covenant of grace" what they mean is that the Mosaic covenant is the covenant of grace. It is the covenant of grace as it was administered during a certain period of time.

If, on the other hand, someone is using the phrase "administration of grace" to simply mean that the gospel was revealed to OT saints so that they could place their faith in it, then as 2LBCF confesses in 8.6


For a longer explanation, please see the "Long Reply" section here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/re-did-the-covenant-of-grace-begin-in-the-new-covenant/
So God was saving them based upon the coming Messiah, so he was able to "credit the Cross" towards them , even though to us messiah had not actually come yet in the flesh?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Scott I'm not much of a car guy so I don't know if I'm really following the analogy, but when/where is the 10 commandments part of the covenant of works? Are you referring to 19.1-2?

(I'm assuming the Covenant of Works you're speaking of is the covenant that God made with Adam.)

The law is eternal and was given to Adam in the garden.... see the WCF
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Well Scott me thinks you are a closet Baptist. I note in your signature that the forerunner to our Lord was John the Baptist, not John the Presbyterian. :lol: :lol:

Well, to be accurate, John's baptism was not Christian baptism but a Jewish washing-as well, JTB was circumcised and a covenanter. Most likeley, if he had been born in the day, would have been a Presbyterian.
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Freshman
Does the 1689 Federalist believe that the Mosaic Covenant IS the Covenant of Works?

No. (Some have made imprecise statements). We believe it was a covenant of works, but certainly not the Covenant of Works. Its reward was not eschatological life but rather life and blessing in the land of Canaan. Note Owen:

The covenant of works had its promises, but they were all remunerative, respecting an antecedent obedience in us; (so were all those which were peculiar unto the covenant of Sinai). They were, indeed, also of grace, in that the reward did infinitely exceed the merit of our obedience; but yet they all supposed it, and the subject of them was formally reward only.

Now this is no other but the covenant of works revived. Nor had this covenant of Sinai any promise of eternal life annexed to it, as such, but only the promise inseparable from the covenant of works which it revived, saying, “Do this, and live… Therefore it is, that when our apostle disputes against justification by the law, or by works of the law, he does not intend the works peculiar to the covenant of Sinai, such as were the rites and ceremonies of the worship then instituted; but he intends also the works of the first covenant, which alone had the promise of life annexed to them.

This covenant [Sinai] thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Cor. iii. 9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.

(2.) It becomes not the wisdom, holiness, and sovereignty of God, to call any people into an especial relation unto himself, to do them good in an eminent and peculiar manner, and then to suffer them to live at their pleasure, without any regard unto what he hath done for them. Wherefore, having granted unto this people those great privileges of the land of Canaan, and the ordinances of worship relating unto the great end mentioned, he moreover prescribed unto them laws, rules, and terms of obedience, whereon they should hold and enjoy that land, with all the privileges annexed unto the possession thereof. And these are both expressed and frequently inculcated, in the repetition and promises of the law. But yet in the prescription of these terms, God reserved the sovereignty of dealing with them unto himself. For had he left them to stand or fall absolutely by the terms prescribed unto them, they might and would have utterly forfeited both the land and all the privileges they enjoyed therein. And had it so fallen out, then the great end of God in preserving them a separate people until the Seed should come, and a representation thereof among them, had been frustrated. Wherefore, although he punished them for their transgressions, according to the threatenings of the law, yet would he not bring the μr,je, or “curse of the law,” upon them, and utterly cast them off, until his great end was accomplished, Malachi 4:4-6. (101)

And the whole of this system of laws is called a “command,” because it consisted in “arbitrary commands” and precepts, regulated by that maxim, “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5. And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ, Galatians 3:11, 12. Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered…

By all these ways was the church of the Hebrews forewarned that the time would come when the whole Mosaical law, as to its legal or covenant efficacy, should be disannulled, unto the unspeakable advantage of the church…

It is therefore plainly declared, that the law is “abrogated,” “abolished… disannulled.”

(Hebrews 7:18)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top