The Mosaic Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I received two responses from a baptist who believes in 1689 Federalism and he has stated these two troubling points:

(1) "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the MC were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."

And also,

"The Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel. Paul made this clear in Romans 2 and 9. This is why your understanding of covenant theology works better for presbyterians who believe the covenant of grace is a mix between believes and unbelievers."

How would you respond?
 
I responded by replying:

"Please tell me you didn't just write, "he means we are NO LONGER under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life." This comes very close to the Scofield notes where he claims that we are "NOW justified by faith." Can you explain your sentence to me? You are not positing two ways of justification are you, but merely typed too quickly, right?"

How would you have responded?
 
I received two responses from a baptist who believes in 1689 Federalism and he has stated these two troubling points:

(1) "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the MC were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."

And also,

"The Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel. Paul made this clear in Romans 2 and 9. This is why your understanding of covenant theology works better for presbyterians who believe the covenant of grace is a mix between believes and unbelievers."

How would you respond?
I am a Baptist, and would see that the Mosaic law was given by God to show to us His holiness. His standards and Moral Code, to regulate the culture of Israel, but not as a means unto salvation by obeying it, as none save Jesus ever could obey the law well enough to merit salvation.
 
I am a Baptist, and would see that the Mosaic law was given by God to show to us His holiness. His standards and Moral Code, to regulate the culture of Israel, but not as a means unto salvation by obeying it, as none save Jesus ever could obey the law well enough to merit salvation.
Nobody says it was a means of salvation. But it did point to Christ because He was prefigured in the sacrifices. It was a gracious advance in the plan of redemption.
 
Nobody says it was a means of salvation. But it did point to Christ because He was prefigured in the sacrifices. It was a gracious advance in the plan of redemption.
Yes, it was part of the ongoing process that would bring about the coming of the promised Messiah.
 
How would you respond?

It's Plato 101. There is a difference between saying "physical/spiritual" and "external/internal." I'm not entirely satsified with external language, but it is much better than the Platonism. The older divines spoke of the substance of the covenant and its administration.
 
I received two responses from a baptist who believes in 1689 Federalism and he has stated these two troubling points:

(1) "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the MC were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."

And also,

"The Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel. Paul made this clear in Romans 2 and 9. This is why your understanding of covenant theology works better for presbyterians who believe the covenant of grace is a mix between believes and unbelievers."

How would you respond?

I think you can find passages in Berkhof and/or other Reformed writers that say something similar to (1). It is not necessarily Scofield/Chafer but it depends on the context and the totality of what the teacher believes. (And even Scofield and Chafer were inconsistent and contradictory on this, thankfully.) But I don't know what our mutual friend really believes on some things.

As for the second part, I really don't have a clue, especially if he means that spiritual Israel was somehow not part of physical Israel. I mean, spiritual Israel wasn't supposed to go to the temple, etc?
 
I would say your original statement is true because everyone knows that what God really wanted in the Old Testament was a group of stiffnecked rebellious faithless unbelievers he could call his own special people the very apple of his eye.
 
Last edited:
I would say your original statement is true because everyone knows that what God really wanted in the Old Testament was a group of stiffnecked rebellious faithless unbelievers he could call his own special people the very apple of his eye.
?
Is this sarcasm or real?
 
Sarcasm

The only legitimate members of the old administration of the covenant of grace were believers and their children all others were to be cut off
 
"(1) "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the MC were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."

And also,

"The Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel. Paul made this clear in Romans 2 and 9. This is why your understanding of covenant theology works better for presbyterians who believe the covenant of grace is a mix between believes and unbelievers."

How would you respond?"

Sure looks like this guy has his ducks all running around-he clearly says that the MC had the capacity to save.....not to miss mentioning that his view of the C of G is skewed as well, i.e. the Mosaic Covenant is a gracious covenant.

The 2nd statement is as well blurry. God knew. Moses knew that all Israel wasn't Israel. The Abrahamic covenant validates that. Spiritual Israel would be the converted elect only. If you fail to understand that the covenant had internal and external aspects, you'll end up here where this guy is and u end up credo. Consider Ishmael and Esau-both were in covenant (externally). Judas. Demas. Ananias and Sapphira, Simon Magus.
 
Those two statements ARE troubling. This 1689 Federalism gets worse each time I hear of it. The MC was made with All the children of Israel--everyone who was at Sinai swore to it, and circumcised their children into it. But the MC was less good than the NC in this sense: not everyone who was in covenant with God was saved. Some were--there were multitudes of saints in the OT times, but while being born a Jew and circumcised guaranteed membership in the covenant, and laid on one the duties of it, remission of sins depended on true repentance and faith--believing that only God can take away sins and trusting in Him to do so. Perhaps not understanding that in the fullness of time God's own Son would shed his blood to take away those sins, but believing that forgiveness of sins was God's work alone. Even the Pharisees of Jesus' day recognized that last bit.
 
Regarding the OP, I believe your friend is mistaken. I would point him here:
http://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/

To be clear, only one 1689 Fed author has expressed the idea that the MC offered eternal life, and he has been challenged by all the others (see above link). The historic and more biblical view was that the MC was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan (a view expressed by many paedobaptists) and was not a means of earning eternal life.
 
However, when your friend said "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life." he is correct. Note the reference to Rom 6:14 in WCF/2LBCF 19.6. Paul is not, however, referring to the Mosaic Covenant at this point.
 
Ron said:
not everyone who was in covenant with God was saved.

The same is true in the new covenant whether you want to recognize it or not
 
Brandon said:
The historic and more biblical view was that the MC was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan

Soooo... in the MC God is not so much a redeemer as he is a real estate agent

Sweeeet
 
Those two statements ARE troubling. This 1689 Federalism gets worse each time I hear of it. The MC was made with All the children of Israel--everyone who was at Sinai swore to it, and circumcised their children into it. But the MC was less good than the NC in this sense: not everyone who was in covenant with God was saved. Some were--there were multitudes of saints in the OT times, but while being born a Jew and circumcised guaranteed membership in the covenant, and laid on one the duties of it, remission of sins depended on true repentance and faith--believing that only God can take away sins and trusting in Him to do so. Perhaps not understanding that in the fullness of time God's own Son would shed his blood to take away those sins, but believing that forgiveness of sins was God's work alone. Even the Pharisees of Jesus' day recognized that last bit.

Okay, thanks. These statements were made by a brother who advocates 1689 Federalism in some form (not sure the movement is entirely monolithic, but they do seem to assert most of the main points).

The Mosaic Covenant was given to Israel. Period. And Israel was a mixed company. I am not sure why this MUST entail paedobaptism, but many baptists seem to now say that we cannot admit this or else we may turn paedo. I even admit that the external church is a mixed company, for plenty of the unsaved play the part of a believer for a time when they are never truly IN the covenant (IN Christ). Again, I am not sure why I cannot believe this as a baptist.
 
Brandon said:
The historic and more biblical view was that the MC was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan

Soooo... in the MC God is not so much a redeemer as he is a real estate agent

Sweeeet

That is also what I thought as well. Brandon is here on the PB. I am hoping he will clarify his statement so that I can understand better.
 
Okay, thanks. These statements were made by a brother who advocates 1689 Federalism in some form (not sure the movement is entirely monolithic, but they do seem to assert most of the main points).

The Mosaic Covenant was given to Israel. Period. And Israel was a mixed company. I am not sure why this MUST entail paedobaptism, but many baptists seem to now say that we cannot admit this or else we may turn paedo. I even admit that the external church is a mixed company, for plenty of the unsaved play the part of a believer for a time when they are never truly IN the covenant (IN Christ). Again, I am not sure why I cannot believe this as a baptist.
I don't think it must needs entail paedo. The New Covenant is also given to Israel--the Israel of God. All who are in covenant with God ARE Abraham's seed--we are Isrealites, brother--but the more real, fuller, better Israel that the old physical Israel was a picture of. Why this does not require paedo will have to be a question for another time--for now I must go to work.
 
If I remember correctly, the credo holds that the NC is only made up of the elect. The NC does not have internal and external distinctions. If a false confessor is baptized and made a member of the local church and falls away into reprobation, this person was never actually in the NC/COG.

The above is the difference between credo NC and the Paedo NC.
 
If I remember correctly, the credo holds that the NC is only made up of the elect. The NC does not have internal and external distinctions. If a false confessor is baptized and made a member of the local church and falls away into reprobation, this person was never actually in the NC/COG.

The above is the difference between credo NC and the Paedo NC.
Yes, that is what I believe. Except that I grant that one might say that unbelievers are part of the external administration of the CogG (that is, they sit under the blessings of the Church). So they are "under" the covenant but not truly "in" the Covenant. Or, as Presbyterians I think put it, they are part of the Covenant of Grace in its external administration but not in its internal reality.
 
Children are a prime example and how the credo raises their child. They raise them like they ARE in an external aspect, else the enmity they claim the child is at would be heaping up cups of wrath towards them by accessing things like prayer and claiming any of God's blessings as that just goes against scripture.

When the scriptures call for parents to 'rear their children in the way they should go', it is doing so based on a covenantal relationship. Consider 1 Cor 7:14 in the schema of things and how it is only logical from a covenantal aspect.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/
 
The idea that God in the Old Testament was only offering the people physical blessings such as children land good crops and military victories aligns him much closer to the gods of Greece and Rome then the God of the Bible.

Not to mention it makes God inconsistent arbitrary and capricious in light of the fact that he is always punishing them for their lack of faith unbelief and immorality.

In the Old Testament God expected the people to pass on a godly heritage to their children he wanted godly seed he wanted them to be a holy nation and a royal priesthood.
 
Children are a prime example and how the credo raises their child. They raise them like they ARE in an external aspect, else the enmity they claim the child is at would be heaping up cups of wrath towards them by accessing things like prayer and claiming any of God's blessings as that just goes against scripture.

When the scriptures call for parents to 'rear their children in the way they should go', it is doing so based on a covenantal relationship. Consider 1 Cor 7:14 in the schema of things and how it is only logical from a covenantal aspect.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/
Yes. I do believe (and take comfort) in the general promises that the children of believers are given in the Bible. I just don't think birth is enough to give the covenant signs (though I do admit a logic to it).
 
The idea that God in the Old Testament was only offering the people physical blessings such as children land good crops and military victories aligns him much closer to the gods of Greece and Rome then the God of the Bible.

Not to mention it makes God inconsistent arbitrary and capricious in light of the fact that he is always punishing them for their lack of faith unbelief and immorality.

In the Old Testament God expected the people to pass on a godly heritage to their children he wanted godly seed he wanted them to be a holy nation and a royal priesthood.

Yes, this is what I believe and this is also why I am growing more and more dismayed as I read the writings of several baptists.

I am hoping a representative of 1689 Federalism can respond to your reply. I wish there was a tag feature for Brandon, I'd like to hear him respond to this quote above.
 
The problem with the presuppositions of Baptist theology is that At there foundation they are dispensational.

It is clear from this thread and others that all Baptist view Israel and the church as two distinctly different groups they have no choice their theology stands or falls on that presupposition.

If Israel and the church are the same thing then it stands to reason that children have always been a part of the church, if children are a part of the church then Baptist theology is false Or Baptist would need to show proof that Jesus came to throw the children out of the church.
 
Consider Gen 17 and how it says that those that reject the sign are 'cut off'. I know we have discussed this cutting off in the past and acknowledge that the cutting off is more physical than spiritual-cut off from the covenant and the blessings that follow, none the less, the statement is there.

The Abrahamic covenant is not abrogated:
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 17:7.



A sign is a sign....just like the Sabbath day has changed from the last day of the week to the first, in the same way in the OT, circumcision was the sign we placed on our children, in the new, we place water on them.
 
If I remember correctly, the credo holds that the NC is only made up of the elect. The NC does not have internal and external distinctions. If a false confessor is baptized and made a member of the local church and falls away into reprobation, this person was never actually in the NC/COG.

The above is the difference between credo NC and the Paedo NC.

Scott, you're basically correct. What do Paedo's say about those who fall into reprobation? Are they former members of the NC? Former members of the visible church?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
The new covenant is not the covenant of grace it is an administration of the covenant of grace they are different things
 
Bill,
The person that is a Covenant member I.e One who is marked by the Covenant sign, and shows signs of reprobation in their life, would be showing that they were most likely in the external side of the covenant of grace and the Internal side of the covenant of works. Nonetheless, in covenant.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top