The New Covenant Clearly Replaced the Mosaic Covenant, Not the Abrahamic.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scholten

Puritan Board Freshman
Paedo-baptist Statement
There is considerable scriptural evidence that the new covenant replaced the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic.
In Jeremiah 31 God promises a new covenant and in verse 32 he says it will not be like the covenant he made him with their fathers when he took them by the hand out of the land of Egypt. This is clearly a reference to the covenant made with Moses on Mount Sinai.

Concerning the Response Below: Dr. Welty’s comments get at a critical aspect of the new covenant. I agree with him wholeheartedly that under the Abrahamic covenant all did not have the law written on their hearts or know the Lord or have their sins forgiven. What is Dr. Welty implying in this quote? Is he implying that because “each of the contrasts Jeremiah asserts here between the New and the Mosaic Covenants, is also a contrast between the New and the Abrahamic” that therefore just as the new covenant replaced the Mosaic therefore it also replaces the Abrahamic? But that does not logically follow. The Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant are still two distinct covenants. Just because one is ended it does not follow that the other is ended.


Baptist Response
The following quote is taken from “A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism” by Greg Welty:

Paedobaptists may claim that baptists are failing to recognize that the contrast which Jeremiah is drawing here is between the New Covenant and the Mosaic (Old) Covenant, not between the New Covenant and the covenant as originally administered to Abraham. Since paedobaptists justify infant baptism with reference to the Abrahamic (not Mosaic) Covenant, the fact that Jeremiah speaks of the New Covenant as different from the Mosaic is of no relevance for the question of infant baptism. This point is well taken--the Mosaic Covenant was indeed added to the Abrahamic promises, not repealing or replacing them but furthering their ultimate purpose (Galatians 3:17-19). But reflection upon the realities of the Abrahamic Covenant will reveal that each of the contrasts Jeremiah asserts here between the New and the Mosaic Covenants, is also a contrast between the New and the Abrahamic! Under the Abrahamic Covenant, all did not have the law written on their hearts, or know the Lord, or have their sins forgiven. Covenant children such as Ishmael and Esau, who lived under the Abrahamic but not the Mosaic Covenant, bear eloquent testimony to this fact.

Which do you agree with? Is there an error in either of the arguments?

The last post in this series can be found at:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/4-d...covenant-did-not-annul-abrahamic-coven-70699/

You are also welcome to go to the following link to engage in a discussion on baptism:

http://dialogos-studies.com/Dialogos/baptism/infant_baptism.htm

Herb
 

jogri17

Puritan Board Junior
Not sure if I get whether the mosaic covenant was a part of the cov of grace or a republication of the covenant of works. I know reformed folk have different views on that.
 

Scholten

Puritan Board Freshman
Not sure if I get whether the mosaic covenant was a part of the cov of grace or a republication of the covenant of works. I know reformed folk have different views on that.

Working out the specifics there could well shed light on these covenants and be helpful as far as the discussion on baptism is concerned.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
There are not two or three (or more) Covenants but one Covenant of Grace. It is not proper to speak of "replacing" as if one completely different Covenant replaces another but, rather, to see the CoG as being in Christ from the Fall of Adam to the present with an increasing unfolding and revealing of that Covenant in history. When we neglect the organic unity of the various dispensations then we will tend to forget that salvation to sinners in every age has been found in Christ.

III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.

VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.
 

Weston Stoler

Puritan Board Sophomore
The covenant of Abraham is still in affect through the covenant of Moses, through the covenant of David, and through the covenant of grace. It still applies. I don't actually see where your argument holds weight? The covenants don't cancel each other out but ratify.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
There is considerable scriptural evidence that the new covenant replaced the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic.

It doesn't replace it. The promises of the Abrahamic and Mosaic are fulfilled in Christ as I understand it. The substance of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenant is the same. They are administrations of the one Covenant of Grace.
 

Scholten

Puritan Board Freshman
The covenant of Abraham is still in affect through the covenant of Moses, through the covenant of David, and through the covenant of grace. It still applies. I don't actually see where your argument holds weight? The covenants don't cancel each other out but ratify.

Thanks for this comment. How do we know from Scripture that the Abrahamic covenant is still in affect through the covenant of Moses, David and the covenant of grace?

---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

There is considerable scriptural evidence that the new covenant replaced the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic.

It doesn't replace it. The promises of the Abrahamic and Mosaic are fulfilled in Christ as I understand it. The substance of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenant is the same. They are administrations of the one Covenant of Grace.

How is the substance of the Abrahamic covenant the same as the substance of the Mosaic covenant? The Mosaic covenant is no longer valid, correct?
Thanks!
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Let me ask how it is different and how they look different? We have type and antitype, but what else is there? Is not Christ and His grace the substance of them? I am working this out also.
 

Andrew P.C.

Puritan Board Junior
As I'm still looking into it, I think it's important to note that baptists believe in a totally radical change with the New Covenant. The reality is that all the covenants in scripture are administrations of the one, eternal covenant, the Covenant of Grace. I think Calvin puts it into perspective well:

For this is the order and economy which God observed in dispensing the covenant of his mercy, that as the course of time accelerated the time of its full exhibition, he illustrated it from day to day with additional revelations. Therefore, in the beginning, when the first promise was given to Adam, it was like the kindling of some feeble sparks. Subsequent accessions caused a considerable enlargement of the light, which continued to increase more and more, and diffused its splendour through a wide extent, till at length, every cloud being dissipated, Christ, the Sun of righteousness, completely illuminated the whole world(Inst. II, x, 20, Eng. tr. by John Allen)
 

JP Wallace

Puritan Board Sophomore
As I'm still looking into it, I think it's important to note that baptists believe in a totally radical change with the New Covenant. The reality is that all the covenants in scripture are administrations of the one, eternal covenant, the Covenant of Grace. I think Calvin puts it into perspective well:

Andrew I known what you mean (I think!) but it's not strictly accurate, as you will see from the quote below the 1689 Confession actually speaks of one Covenant of Grace founded on the Eternal Covenant of Redemption which is progressively revealed.

Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 Chapter 8
2. Moreover Man having brought himself 119under the curse of the Law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace wherein he freely offereth unto Sinners, 120Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them Faith in him, that they may be saved; and 121promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal Life, his holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
3. This Covenant is revealed in the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of Salvation by the 122seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, untill the full 123discovery thereof was compleated in the new Testament; and it is founded in that 124Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect; and it is alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were 125saved, did obtain life and a blessed immortality; Man being now utterly uncapable of acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.
 

Todd King

Puritan Board Freshman
I could, literally, write a book explaining this, but will try to keep it brief without oversimplifying.

In the garden, God made a covenant with man, which was essentially that man was to love the Lord his God with all of his heart, soul, mind and strength, or die. When man failed at that covenant, God neither killed man immediately (which would have given victory to Satan), nor did he make a new covenant, but he revised the existing covenant in which he placed some new terms of the covenant; including toil, pain, strife, etc. This covenant was modified one final time after the flood when God added the term that man was to kill any man who killed any man. This covenant was made with all mankind. (Covenant of Works)

God later singled out Abraham and made a covenant with him which was extended to only a certain race of people (in order to provide a new and better way through which man might be redeemed). What is often called the Mosaic covenant is actually not a new covenant, but is God's iteration that the original covenant still applies to those who are part of this new covenant with Abraham. In the Mosaic covenant, God does get a little more specific in pointing out exactly what the original covenant entails, but it is still the original covenant. God is letting the Israelites know that even though they are under a new covenant, they are still bound by the original covenant as they are part of mankind. The so-called Davidic covenant is just a reiteration of the various aspects of the Abrahamic covenant- specifically the clauses regarding perpetual Kingship, innumerable children, and a promised land. (Covenant of Grace)

The new covenant essentially goes backwards in that it extends the Abrahamic covenant to all of mankind. Christ is the perpetual King, the new heaven and new earth are the promised land, and the adoption of saints into the family is innumerable children.

So, we can see that there was originally one covenant that applied to all mankind (CoW), a new covenant that was made with just a select people which was later extended to all mankind (CoG). Therefore, all mankind is still bound to the original covenant, but can now be included in the other covenant. I could go into much greater detail, but I hope that this is enough to answer the question and to help with your understanding.
 
Last edited:

Weston Stoler

Puritan Board Sophomore
I could, literally, write a book explaining this, but will try to keep it brief without oversimplifying.

In the garden, God made a covenant with man, which was essentially that man was to love the Lord his God with all of his heart, soul, mind and strength, or die. When man failed at that covenant, God neither killed man immediately (which would have given victory to Satan), nor did he make a new covenant, but he revised the existing covenant in which he placed some new terms of the covenant; including toil, pain, strife, etc. This covenant was modified one final time after the flood when God added the term that man was to kill any man who killed any man. This covenant was made with all mankind. (Covenant of Works)

God later singled out Abraham and made a covenant with him which was extended to only a certain race of people (in order to provide a new and better way through which man might be redeemed). What is often called the Mosaic covenant is actually not a new covenant, but is God's iteration that the original covenant still applies to those who are part of this new covenant with Abraham. In the Mosaic covenant, God does get a little more specific in pointing out exactly what the original covenant entails, but it is still the original covenant. God is letting the Israelites know that even though they are under a new covenant, they are still bound by the original covenant as they are part of mankind. The so-called Davidic covenant is just a reiteration of the various aspects of the Abrahamic covenant- specifically the clauses regarding perpetual Kingship, innumerable children, and a promised land. (Covenant of Grace)

The new covenant essentially goes backwards in that it extends the Abrahamic covenant to all of mankind. Christ is the perpetual King, the new heaven and new earth are the promised land, and the adoption of saints into the family is innumerable children.

So, we can see that there was originally one covenant that applied to all mankind (CoW), a new covenant that was made with just a select people which was later extended to all mankind (CoG). Therefore, all mankind is still bound to the original covenant, but can now be included in the other covenant. I could go into much greater detail, but I hope that this is enough to answer the question and to help with your understanding.

I would like more explanation on how killing man immediately would have given Satan a win?
 

Todd King

Puritan Board Freshman
I would like more explanation on how killing man immediately would have given Satan a win?

Satan was jealous of man and his relationship with God. Man was ugly, weak, powerless while Satan was beautiful, intelligent, strong. He saw man as being the one thing between him and the affections of God. He also realized that if he could get rid of man, that he would ultimately subvert God's will which would allow him to exalt his throne above God's. Knowing that God cannot lie, he saw that when God made the covenant with man, that if he could get man to violate that covenant, that God would have to kill the man. However, what he did not account for was that God could modify the covenant without making it of none effect. So, when man violated his part of this contract, then he did immediately die on a spiritual level, but God provided a way that he could continue to live physically while God effected his will through mankind over the generations through his Son.

Let me try to explain this a little better. Just as in the Abrahamic covenant, where God walked between the pieces, thus signifying that if the contract (that's what a covenant is) was broken, that he would have to pay for it with his life. (In this instance, it was and he did- the life of Jesus who is God). In the original covenant though, God secured his end of the covenant with his life, and man's end was secured with man's life. So, Satan knew that if man violated the covenant and was killed that he had victory through subverting God's will and would exalt himself that way. The other possibility in his eyes was that God would violate the covenant by not killing man- in which case he would have to destroy himself- thus leaving Satan as the most powerful being. So, either way, he figured to come out the winner.
 
Last edited:

Weston Stoler

Puritan Board Sophomore
I would like more explanation on how killing man immediately would have given Satan a win?

Satan was jealous of man and his relationship with God. Man was ugly, weak, powerless while Satan was beautiful, intelligent, strong. He saw man as being the one thing between him and the affections of God. He also realized that if he could get rid of man, that he would ultimately subvert God's will which would allow him to exalt his throne above God's. Knowing that God cannot lie, he saw that when God made the covenant with man, that if he could get man to violate that covenant, that God would have to kill the man. However, what he did not account for was that God could modify the covenant without making it of none effect. So, when man violated his part of this contract, then he did immediately die on a spiritual level, but God provided a way that he could continue to live physically while God effected his will through mankind over the generations through his Son.

Thanks ^-^
 

Scholten

Puritan Board Freshman
The new covenant essentially goes backwards in that it extends the Abrahamic covenant to all of mankind. Christ is the perpetual King, the new heaven and new earth are the promised land, and the adoption of saints into the family is innumerable children.
I have been running into some difficulties getting my arms around the new covenant as referred to in Jer. 31 and the Abrahamic covenant. Todd, according to this quote above do you see the new covenant as in some sense the Abrahamic covenant more fully revealed? I personally believe many of our Baptist brothers are correct when they interpret the new covenant as consisting only of believers.
Thanks
 

Andrew P.C.

Puritan Board Junior
I actually have the publication from Greg Welty and a few other publications from his colleagues. One of them is Earl M Blackburn. He wrote a short little booklet called "Covenant Theology (A Reformed Baptist Overview)". In there he writes many troubling things regarding a baptists interpretation of Covenant Theology, but here are a few things I'd like to quote just to point out that the baptist understanding has false premises.

Just before God promised His ancient prophet a New Covenant, He made a declaration of a Change in administration of the Covenant of Grace. The change has to do with God's manner in dealing with children. Notice exactly the wording of this proverb, one that was common in ancient Israel: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." In the past, this passage tells us, God dealt with children according to the status and actions of their fathers. If a father was a member of the covenant, so were the children. If a father was obedient or transgressed, the children also were blessed or suffered punishment. Jeremiah 31:29-30 teaches that it would not be that way in the New Covenant. As the prophet states in verse 30, "But each one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shale be set on edge." This unmistakably instructs us that each person will be dealt with individually, whether his father is a believer or not, or whether his father has sinned or not. The standing of the father before God will have absolutely no bearing on the place of the child in covenant dealings. The implications of this is far-reaching: A child would not automatically be included in the covenant by birth or baptism, or simply because his father is a covenant member.[Note: by the same token, if a child is a member of a visible church in the New Covenant days and his father is excommunicated, the child is not cast out along with the father.]

(The end note in the quote is still his. Also, this took forever to type.... pheeww.)

He also writes:
The administration of the New Covenant would not be in the manner and practice of the Old. Here is biblical discontinuity.

In the New Covenant, God irrevocably promises several things to each of its members that He did not promise to each member of the former administrations: 1) to write His law on the mind and heart of each; 2) to be his God and make him part of God's people; 3) that every single one, from the greatest to the least, shall savingly know God. [Note: "know" is not a theoretical knowledge taught or catechized by a teacher, but is an experiential knowledge spiritually given. Contrast this with 1 Cor 2:14.] 4) that He would be merciful to all their unrighteousnesses; 5) that their sins and lawless deeds He will remember no more. [Note: While these things were possessed by some members of the Old Testament administrations of the Covenant of Grace, they were not possessed by every legitimate member as they are in the New covenant.]

(All quotations from Earl M. Blackburn's booklet and is part of the Reformed Baptist Publications)

I think this truly shows a radical change and misinterpretation of scripture.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
When man failed at that covenant, God neither killed man immediately (which would have given victory to Satan), nor did he make a new covenant, but he revised the existing covenant in which he placed some new terms of the covenant; including toil, pain, strife, etc. This covenant was modified one final time after the flood when God added the term that man was to kill any man who killed any man. This covenant was made with all mankind. (Covenant of Works)

You are wrong in my estimation. Death was an immediate result. And a new Promise of Grace was instituted promptly. You are forgetting the covering of animal skins (an animal was slain on behalf of Adam and Eve which pointed to Christ) which Abel fully understood as that was also his sacrifice that pleased God. The Covenant of Works was not modified to accommodate. It was broken once for all who were under Adam.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Is the New Covenant new? How is it new? Reverend Winzer made a short comment that illumined this point. I will reference it here.

Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.

Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Satan was jealous of man and his relationship with God. Man was ugly, weak, powerless while Satan was beautiful, intelligent, strong. He saw man as being the one thing between him and the affections of God. He also realized that if he could get rid of man, that he would ultimately subvert God's will which would allow him to exalt his throne above God's. Knowing that God cannot lie, he saw that when God made the covenant with man, that if he could get man to violate that covenant, that God would have to kill the man. However, what he did not account for was that God could modify the covenant without making it of none effect. So, when man violated his part of this contract, then he did immediately die on a spiritual level, but God provided a way that he could continue to live physically while God effected his will through mankind over the generations through his Son.

This is fraught with so much error I don't even know where to begin. I will have to deal with it later. I have to go to the hospital and visit my Dad.

For one thing I would like to point this out. It is pure conjecture that Satan was jealous of man and that subverting God's will would allow Satan to exalt his majesty (or throne) over Gods is just non sense. God does not rely upon his creation for an established throne nor is he tied to it in a way that it could ever dethrone him and allow a creature to be enthroned above him.
 
Last edited:

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
The New Covenant is a new administration and fresh flowering of the Abrahamic Covenant, at last expanding to encompass and incorporate all nations and fill the Earth.

E.g.
Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. (Gen 17:4-7,ESV)

And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." (Gen 17:8)

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (Rom 4:13)

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (Rom 4:16)

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. (Rom 11:17-18)

For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. (Rom 11:24)

remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,(Eph 2:12-15)

All nations are being incorporated into the Abrahamic Covenant in its New administration, into the Abrahamic Covenantal Olive Tree, into the Israel of God, and into the Commonwealth of Israel. It's an expansive and flowering process in history agaist much opposition of Satan's minions.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
I would like more explanation on how killing man immediately would have given Satan a win?

Satan was jealous of man and his relationship with God. Man was ugly, weak, powerless while Satan was beautiful, intelligent, strong. He saw man as being the one thing between him and the affections of God. He also realized that if he could get rid of man, that he would ultimately subvert God's will which would allow him to exalt his throne above God's. Knowing that God cannot lie, he saw that when God made the covenant with man, that if he could get man to violate that covenant, that God would have to kill the man. However, what he did not account for was that God could modify the covenant without making it of none effect. So, when man violated his part of this contract, then he did immediately die on a spiritual level, but God provided a way that he could continue to live physically while God effected his will through mankind over the generations through his Son.

Let me try to explain this a little better. Just as in the Abrahamic covenant, where God walked between the pieces, thus signifying that if the contract (that's what a covenant is) was broken, that he would have to pay for it with his life. (In this instance, it was and he did- the life of Jesus who is God). In the original covenant though, God secured his end of the covenant with his life, and man's end was secured with man's life. So, Satan knew that if man violated the covenant and was killed that he had victory through subverting God's will and would exalt himself that way. The other possibility in his eyes was that God would violate the covenant by not killing man- in which case he would have to destroy himself- thus leaving Satan as the most powerful being. So, either way, he figured to come out the winner.

Let me try to understand what you're saying - I don't believe you're being very clear.

It sounds to me as though you are denying that the pre-Fall Adamic covenant has been once for all broken by Adam and that all his progeny stand as having broken that covenant (and reap the penalty that was promised to Adam in it. It sounds as though you are arguing that the covenant of grace is merely a reformulation or modification of the original terms of the covenant prior to the Fall.

Is this the case?
 

Todd King

Puritan Board Freshman
When man failed at that covenant, God neither killed man immediately (which would have given victory to Satan), nor did he make a new covenant, but he revised the existing covenant in which he placed some new terms of the covenant; including toil, pain, strife, etc. This covenant was modified one final time after the flood when God added the term that man was to kill any man who killed any man. This covenant was made with all mankind. (Covenant of Works)

You are wrong in my estimation. Death was an immediate result. And a new Promise of Grace was instituted promptly. You are forgetting the covering of animal skins (an animal was slain on behalf of Adam and Eve which pointed to Christ) which Abel fully understood as that was also his sacrifice that pleased God. The Covenant of Works was not modified to accommodate. It was broken once for all who were under Adam.

I've not forgotten the lamb which was slain, indeed, that was the essential for amending the covenant. I don't have time now, but will go in much greater depth this evening to help clarify. However, I would suggest that you have forgotten the defining characteristics of a covenant.

Regarding your last post addressing me, I admit that there is some conjecture, but fraught with error it is not- which I can also explain later. However, I will concede that Satan's motives we may never fully understand and may have to agree to disagree on.
 

JP Wallace

Puritan Board Sophomore
but he revised the existing covenant in which he placed some new terms of the covenant; including toil, pain, strife, etc. This covenant was modified one final time after the flood when God added the term that man was to kill any man who killed any man. This covenant was made with all mankind. (Covenant of Works)

I would not be terribly happy with any talk of the Covenant of Works being 'modified' or 'revised', if for no other reason that it is Christ's obedience to the original Covenant of Works that constitutes our righteousness imputed to us in the Covenant of Grace.

Romans 8:3-4 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Likewise I'm not terribly happy enveloping the Noahic covenant in the Covenant of Works, because post-fall God relates to fallen many only by grace, for that reason I am not content even to consider the Mosaic Covenant as a Republication of the CoW, though it may 'contain' a republication, if you know what I mean.

Post-fall we are lost, apart from God's grace. That's what the confessions uniformly teach,

BCF 20:1
1. The Covenant of Works being broken by Sin, and made unprofitable unto Life; God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, 334the Seed of the Woman, as the means of calling the Elect, and begetting in them Faith and Repentance; in this Promise, the 335Gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and therein Effectual, for the Conversion and Salvation of Sinners.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
He saw man as being the one thing between him and the affections of God. He also realized that if he could get rid of man, that he would ultimately subvert God's will which would allow him to exalt his throne above God's.

Concerning the first part, Satan could probably care less about the affections of God for anything or for God's affection for man. Satan is not concerned about things that might stand between himself and God's affections for him. All Satan wants is the same thing he tried to get Jesus to hand over in Matthew Chapter 4.

(Mat 4:8) Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

(Mat 4:9) And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Satan deceived Adam and Eve to make them subject to sin and death. He wanted to ascend on high himself exalting himself over God. He just wants to subject everything under Himself. Even God.

Getting rid of mankind would in no way subvert God's will and allow Satan to exalt his (supposed throne) rule above God. I plead with you to reconsider your understanding of who God is and that he is transcendent. His creation relies upon him. He doesn't rely upon His creation.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
Seems, Mr. King, that you've missed the question, so I'm asking again:

Do you. as you seem to be arguing, really believe the Covenant of Grace is merely a revision of the Covenant of Works? Or, as is required by your confession (you pick - LBCF or WCF, it doesn't matter) do you believe the Covenant of Works is a broken covenant, such that all human beings whose natural head is Adam are under its curse, and having no hope of satisfying its terms? Such a covenant can not be "repaired" or "amended" - but must be replaced in toto, as it was, by the Covenant of Grace. The former covenant, headed by Adam, is gone - all have broken it. The covenant of grace, headed by our Lord and Savior, is here, and all who live live in Him, completely and utterly by grace, and not by works.
 

Todd King

Puritan Board Freshman
Mr. Pedlar-

I did not miss your question, I made it clear that I would not be able to respond further until evening- I work for a living, so I cannot sit at my computer all day answering the same question over and over repeatedly. No, I am not arguing that the CoG is a mere revision of the CoW. In fact, after re-reading what I wrote several times to see if I was just articulating poorly, I can say with certainty that I made it very clear that there are two separate and distinct covenants- The Covenant of Works which all mankind is under, and the Covenant of Grace which all of the elect are under. However, the CoG has been extended, or offered, to all of mankind. Not all of mankind will accept it, therefore not all of mankind are under it.

Since I did clearly articulate this, I am honestly not sure what the witch hunt is about, but it all seems to hinge on the idea of modifying or amending. I would love to answer this much more completely here, but it is a subject that is quite involved and will take considerable time on my part to explain fully. Therefore, I will prepare something in detail and post it as a separate post sometime in the next few days. As I said earlier, I could literally write a book on the subject, so compressing it into one or two paragraphs is obviously not practical. That was my mistake- trying to touch on such a complex idea in a short post.

Mr. Snyder-

I speculate as to the motive of Lucifer attacking man. So do you. Neither of us knows which is correct, so we will likely have to agree to disagree. I will address my conjecturing in more detail when I get the above mentioned post put together so that you will know exactly what and why I come to the speculative reasoning that I do. Nowhere, however, did I say that God could be overthrown by Satan, nor that he is dependent on his creation for his power or rule. I said that I believe that Satan thought that he could use that against God to overthrow him. Obviously he was wrong; nevertheless, he did (and still does) think that he can overthrow God, and he does have some sort of motive for his actions. My speculation, while just speculation or conjecture, is based upon what scripture reveals to us about that serpent.

All of that being said, I will not be back on here to respond to any further questions or attacks, so please be patient and I will provide detailed thoughts on the subject shortly.

Herb-

I apologize for hijacking your thread. My intent was to try to give a simple answer to a complex idea.
 

Scholten

Puritan Board Freshman
Mr. Pedlar-

. . . In fact, after re-reading what I wrote several times to see if I was just articulating poorly, I can say with certainty that I made it very clear that there are two separate and distinct covenants- The Covenant of Works which all mankind is under, and the Covenant of Grace which all of the elect are under. However, the CoG has been extended, or offered, to all of mankind. Not all of mankind will accept it, therefore not all of mankind are under it. . . .


Herb-

I apologize for hijacking your thread. My intent was to try to give a simple answer to a complex idea.


As far as "hijacking" the thread - no problem at all. It as always better to find people who are interested in examining God's Word with respect to these matters rather than having a post sit idle with no responses!

I look forward to your post when you develope the above further. When you do so (or here), could you expound on the relationship of the Covenant of Grace to the Abrahamic covenant? If the CoG is to the elect, then the Abrahamic covenant can not really be part of the CoG because the Abrahamic covenant contains some unbelievers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top