Resolution regarding covenants, Hebrews 9:15

[MarrowMan]

Maybe we are having a terminology issue. I am not sure how.

I mean, I see now that the "CofW ending" refers to the means by which any one born human could achieve eternal life has ended, ok. Agreed. And so when I said the CofW condemns still today, you all agree with that. I think we are on the same page there now.

But does it even matter that you were referring to the Mosaic covenant vs. the CofW?

As I understand, in the days before the NT, each covenant has one (or more) element(s) of CofW: "do this and live" complimented with element(s) of types of Christ in which grace (by faith alone in Christ alone) saves those called as true Israel and OT saints.

As it relates to the OP, it matters since the discussion is whether or not the Mosaic covenant is the OT administration of the one CoG and whether or not Hebrews 9:15 provides a definitive resolution in favor of the proposition.

I said above that I don't think the text does that itself, but is another leg in the argument bolstering the proleptic nature of saving grace in the OT present within the OC. If saving grace is part of the OC, If it's institutions, forms, sacraments, were intended to present Christ as the object of faith through types and shadows to the elect OT believer, then it is indeed an administration of the CoG. It can be no other unless one wants to posit a hybrid of CoG and CoW, which is nonsensical, or to deny the salvific component of the OC, which I think is untenable. If the priestly sacrificial system was intended to present Christ to the people of God in types and shadows and if the law's "do this and live" was intended to point people to the need for what was presented in the types and shadows, it is an administration of the CoG. A covenantal structure that presents and administers the promise of God of the righteousness that is by faith.

Now, I know my Baptist brothers would certainly take issue with things in the above. I'm not trying to convince or fully demonstrate. Just better presenting as clearly as I can my thought process for your clearer understanding.

 

[No Other Name]

The confusion here is over the word "retroactively". I believe people are taking that as a "OT saints were not saved UNTIL Christ accomplished His redemptive work and then it was applied to them" thing. Do you mean it this way?

I hesitate to speak for Sean, but I am confident Sean does not mean this, otherwise he would disagree with 2LBCF which he claims is his confession (8.6).

WCF 8.6 and 2LBCF 8.6 are nearly identical except for one (seemingly) minor difference:

WCF 8.6:

"Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto 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 of the woman which should bruise the serpent’s head; and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world; being yesterday and today the same, and forever."

2LBCF 8.6:

"Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until 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;⁠1⁠ and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,⁠2⁠ being the same yesterday, and today and for ever.⁠3"

According to Jim Renihan (To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: An Exposition of Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, p. 235-236):

"This is a minor change from the WCF/Savoy language, focusing on the cross work of Christ. [Here he cites the 1689 Narrative of the Proceedings of the General Assembly, p. 14] ... in God's purpose, the virtue, efficacy and benefit of this work was communicated to the elect from the beginning of the world by means of revelation (types and promises) as well as the sacrificial system. ... Through them the Lord revealed Christ as the promised Messiah who would crush the serpent's head and who was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The eye of faith [OT saintly eyes] recognized in these words and actions the purpose of God - one day all would be fulfilled in Christ.

Salvation for those who lived before the cross was by prospective faith, looking forward to the time of fulfillment. ... Because God does not change, His promise is as good as its accomplishment. It is assured, and for that reason, believers confidently rest certain that all will come to pass exactly as revealed.

By focusing on the PRICE PAID the Confession is preparing for a problem to be addressed in Ch. 11, namely the doctrine of justification from eternity. Held by some High Calvinists, this teaching argued that because God had decreed the justification of the elect in eternity therefore they are justified from all eternity and are never under the wrath of God."

Allowing for misunderstanding of terms and meanings, it seems like some WCF adherents are concerned that 1689 disallows any OT saints. (Hopefully, this proves otherwise)

And removing time as a factor in the application of the blood of Christ in the New Covenant, some are concerned that WCF adherents are so insistent on the efficacy of the CofG (almost a super-efficacy?) that it seems Christ need not even bother coming to die at all as far as OT saints are concerned.

But again - I am NO expert at all. And this is just my [two cent emoji missing due to lack of funds from the requesting party] hahaha

 

[No Other Name]

As it relates to the OP, it matters since the discussion is whether or not the Mosaic covenant is the OT administration of the one CoG and whether or not Hebrews 9:15 provides a definitive resolution in favor of the proposition.

I said above that I don't think the text does that itself, but is another leg in the argument bolstering the proleptic nature of saving grace in the OT present within the OC. If saving grace is part of the OC, If it's institutions, forms, sacraments, were intended to present Christ as the object of faith through types and shadows to the elect OT believer, then it is indeed an administration of the CoG. It can be no other unless one wants to posit a hybrid of CoG and CoW, which is nonsensical, or to deny the salvific component of the OC, which I think is untenable. If the priestly sacrificial system was intended to present Christ to the people of God in types and shadows and if the law's "do this and live" was intended to point people to the need for what was presented in the types and shadows, it is an administration of the CoG. A covenantal structure that presents and administers the promise of God of the righteousness that is by faith.

Now, I know my Baptist brothers would certainly take issue with things in the above. I'm not trying to convince or fully demonstrate. Just better presenting as clearly as I can my thought process for your clearer understanding.

Thank you for this. My only response would be I don't agree that Mosaic is simply a CofG, and (if I remember) several Westminster divines wrote of the nature of Sinai as a CofW and CofG. Now they would agree with you that Mosaic is CofG yet they admitted "do this and live" is extended to further reveal the Gospel. It is part and parcel of the agreement between the Law and Gospel (while still holding onto the Biblical dinstinctions between the Law and Gospel).

But maybe there is some distinction between "Law" and "CofW"? I admit I am treating these terms as synonymous currently and that may be an error on my part.

 

[MarrowMan]

Thank you for this. My only response would be I don't agree that Mosaic is simply a CofG, and (if I remember) several Westminster divines wrote of the nature of Sinai as a CofW and CofG. Now they would agree with you that Mosaic is CofG yet they admitted "do this and live" is extended to further reveal the Gospel. It is part and parcel of the agreement between the Law and Gospel (while still holding onto the Biblical dinstinctions between the Law and Gospel).

But maybe there is some distinction between "Law" and "CofW"? I admit I am treating these terms as synonymous currently and that may be an error on my part.

This gets into a discussion of republication. That is, the Mosaic does republish the CoW within its structure. That doesn't make it a hybrid of CoW and CoG. It means the republication of the CoW within the Mosaic covenant is not for the purpose of providing the CoW as a means to eternal life as it was with Adam. Rather it is republished as subservient to the CoG in order to point to the necessity of that grace. It serves as an inducement to embracing the grace of God in His promise.

The Marrow of Modern Divinity by Fisher (with Boston's notes) is a good place to go to get a handle on this.

 

[MarrowMan]

Salvation for those who lived before the cross was by prospective faith, looking forward to the time of fulfillment. ... Because God does not change, His promise is as good as its accomplishment. It is assured, and for that reason, believers confidently rest certain that all will come to pass exactly as revealed.

And removing time as a factor in the application of the blood of Christ in the New Covenant, some are concerned that WCF adherents are so insistent on the efficacy of the CofG (almost a super-efficacy?) that it seems Christ need not even bother coming to die at all as far as OT saints are concerned.

Forgive my significant clipping of your post. I did read it all. I would address the entirety of its content in the above bonded and italicized portions.

The bold part answers the italicized part. Because the promise is sure, its essence can be applied to the OC believer - that is, he can have the righteousness that is by faith imputed to him. With prolepsis, it's not just the believer's embrace of the promise that is in view. It is also God's imputing righteousness on the basis of that promise. God proleptically reckoned OC saints as righteous by virtue of the sureness of the promise. He calls things which are not as though they are because though they have yet to be fulfilled, that fulfillment is sure. Paul uses Abraham to demonstrate this point in Romans 4. God named him the father of many nations though the promise had not yet been fulfilled. Abraham was the father of many nations already because the never-changing, ever faithful God had promised and it was as good as done.

In response to the concern represented in that italicized portion re: "super-efficacy", the efficacy of the promise for OC saints rested upon the sureness of that promise. Christ WOULD come. Redemption WOULD be accomplished in Him. It's not as though the efficacy of the CoG is divorced from the promise that undergirds it and the One in whom that promise would be fulfilled.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I think I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion, partly because I have work to do preparing a sermon, but mostly because the terminology in use here confuses rather than edifies (and I may have contributed to this!). First, to use a term – retroactive – while the intent may be (and was) sound and sincere, it needlessly brings in confusion. It talks about time elements in a way that is not helpful: retroactive: an action effective as of a past date. My use of the phrase "time-travel" was to highlight the incongruity of this usage here. I'm sorry, I did not mean to offend in that.

Second, the term Old Covenant has been used in three different ways: Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace, and Mosaic Covenant, often without clarification, which results in a real tangle.

 

[No Other Name]

I think we are almost to the point of full understanding each other.

This gets into a discussion of republication. That is, the Mosaic does republish the CoW within its structure. That doesn't make it a hybrid of CoW and CoG. It means the republication of the CoW within the Mosaic covenant is not for the purpose of providing the CoW as a means to eternal life as it was with Adam. Rather it is republished as subservient to the CoG in order to point to the necessity of that grace. It serves as an inducement to embracing the grace of God in His promise.

I agree with all of this in relation of the CofW to the Mosaic. Now I suspect the "step" function of the faith required by each new revelation of each subsequent covenant, we would not agree. Each republication reveals a new type of Christ never revealed before (or possibly hinted before but now revealed in a unique way) so that each covenant is necessary in redemptive-historical context.

Redemption WOULD be accomplished in Him. It's not as though the efficacy of the CoG is divorced from the promise that undergirds it and the One in whom that promise would be fulfilled.

Yes, just to be absolutely clear, I do not think you - or any other WCF adherent posting here - fall into the category of error of the "High Calvinists" that go too far into the ditch of "justification from eternity". (I put it in quotes because I am referring specifically to the false teaching previously defined by this term).

I meant only that the "itch" that something feels off in the WCF posters was related to this idea- but I always knew that it cannot be charged with any fairness to anyone here.

As I understand the history of my Confession, neither did the General Assembly of 1689 think WCF was wrong here (in 8.6).

They simply changed the phrase in WCF 8.6 to the "price paid" phrase of the 2LBCF 8.6 because it would work better. Better as to their preparation to include a "contra" to those "High Calvinsts".

So there is no need for any WCF adherent to defend oneself against such a charge.

As I hope, there is no 1689 adherent that need defend oneself against the charge of denying the existence of OT saints.

That was my ultimate goal with that long post.

 

[MarrowMan]

I think we are almost to the point of full understanding each other.



I agree with all of this in relation of the CofW to the Mosaic. Now I suspect the "step" function of the faith required by each new revelation of each subsequent covenant, we would not agree. Each republication reveals a new type of Christ never revealed before (or possibly hinted before but now revealed in a unique way) so that each covenant is necessary in redemptive-historical context.


Yes, just to be absolutely clear, I do not think you - or any other WCF adherent posting here - fall into the category of error of the "High Calvinists" that go too far into the ditch of "justification from eternity". (I put it in quotes because I am referring specifically to the false teaching previously defined by this term).

I meant only that the "itch" that something feels off in the WCF posters was related to this idea- but I always knew that it cannot be charged with any fairness to anyone here.

As I understand the history of my Confession, neither did the General Assembly of 1689 think WCF was wrong here (in 8.6).

They simply changed the phrase in WCF 8.6 to the "price paid" phrase of the 2LBCF 8.6 because it would work better. Better as to their preparation to include a "contra" to those "High Calvinsts".

So there is no need for any WCF adherent to defend oneself against such a charge.

As I hope, there is no 1689 adherent that need defend oneself against the charge of denying the existence of OT saints.

That was my ultimate goal with that long post.

Who says Baptists and Presbyterians can't have profitable discussions about these things

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

A final word from me in this thread: Sean, I appreciate the graciousness and patience in your responses to me, even though I was a bit harsh in how I portrayed your comments. You conducted yourself better than I. Thanks for setting a good example. I learned something there!

 

[Burke Devlin]

Perhaps this quote by Bavinck is instructive:

“Just as Abraham, when God allied himself with him, was obligated to “walk before his face,” so Israel as a people was similarly admonished by God’s covenant to a new obedience. The entire law, which the covenant of grace at Mount Sinai took into its service, is intended to prompt Israel as a people to “walk” in the way of the covenant. It is but an explication of the one statement to Abraham: “Walk before me, and be blameless” [Gen. 17:1], and therefore no more a cancellation of the covenant of grace and the foundation of a covenant of works than this word spoken to Abraham. The law of Moses, accordingly, is not antithetical to grace but subservient to it and was also thus understood and praised in every age by Israel’s pious men and women. But detached from the covenant of grace, it indeed became a letter that kills, a ministry of condemnation.”

Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin & Salvation in Christ Herman Bavinck

 

[Burke Devlin]

“To deny the new birth to those saved in ancient Israel is by implication to deny the corruption of man and the necessity of salvation by grace alone.”

“It might be objected that regeneration is a new covenant grace. Dispensationalist theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952) said that the Old Testament saints were renewed to some level of moral obedience to the law, but we cannot affirm that this resulted “in the impartation of the divine nature, in an actual sonship, a joint heirship with Christ, or a placing in the household and family of God,” or in being “justified on the ground of the imputed righteousness of Christ.” Bill Gillham (1927–2011) said that the old covenant saints will receive regeneration when God raises them from the dead, but during their lives they lacked both regeneration and spiritual participation in the kingdom of God, for those are new covenant realities that did not begin until Christ died on the cross.
In reply, we acknowledge that there is no clear, explicit reference to God regenerating a sinner, causing a new birth, or giving a person a new heart under the old covenant. However, this objection misses Christ’s point to Nicodemus. “The new birth is not an additional benefit, but is essential to salvation, for only the Holy Spirit can produce spiritual life: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6; cf. 6:63). The new birth produces a life of righteousness, a radical break from sin, authentic Christian love, faith in Christ, and overcoming the world. Unless we desire to argue that Abraham, Moses, David, and Isaiah had no repentance, faith, love, and obedience, we must conclude that they were born of the Spirit…”

Reformed Systematic Theology, Volume 3
Joel R. Beeke

 

[Northern Crofter]

Perhaps this quote by Bavinck is instructive:

“Just as Abraham, when God allied himself with him, was obligated to “walk before his face,” so Israel as a people was similarly admonished by God’s covenant to a new obedience. The entire law, which the covenant of grace at Mount Sinai took into its service, is intended to prompt Israel as a people to “walk” in the way of the covenant. It is but an explication of the one statement to Abraham: “Walk before me, and be blameless” [Gen. 17:1], and therefore no more a cancellation of the covenant of grace and the foundation of a covenant of works than this word spoken to Abraham. The law of Moses, accordingly, is not antithetical to grace but subservient to it and was also thus understood and praised in every age by Israel’s pious men and women. But detached from the covenant of grace, it indeed became a letter that kills, a ministry of condemnation.”

Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin & Salvation in Christ Herman Bavinck

Not to intentionally muddy the waters of grace/law further, but there are, of course, those of us who believe that the "do this and live" command can also refer at times to natural law - that following the moral law, which can be found in creation before and after the Fall, is part of common grace, and instructs all humans in all ages how to live wisely.

 

[Burke Devlin]

Respectfully, I think you are correct; that is somewhat off topic.