Modified Covenant Theology

[Eileen]

I am just now ‘coming out’ of the system of Covenant Theology so I am trying to do a study of the Covenants, undeniably a huge subject. Are the covenants difficult then to understand, are there no simple thoughts to convey the Covenant dealings of God with His people? More than likely, a lifelong endeavor to understand and comprehend.

So I just wanted to ask just a few questions about the beginning, the Covenant the Trinity entered into and the Covenants ‘in time’ beginning with Adam.

• Would you call the command of God to Adam (pre-fall) to not eat of the tree (Gen 2: 16, 17) of knowledge of good and evil a Covenant of Works? That would be the first law given? If so, was that covenant tied to the covenant of works given at Sinai, just with different laws? Or would you consider them two different covenants? Once broken, are they abolished with the promissory covenants?

• So in Gen 3:15 we have the first promissory covenant given ‘in time’ (post-fall), the promise of Christ who would put enmity between the Seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Is this also called the anti-thesis?

• What would be the sign of this Covenant? Would it be the sacrifice of the animal God used to make them tunics of skin to cover their nakedness? In addition, this would point to the One that would cover the sin of all the elect?

Then, is it commonly believed that the Trinity covenanted in an agreement in eternity for Christ to redeem His people? I have heard this called the Covenant of Grace, the Everlasting Covenant and the Covenant of Redemption. Are these all correct terminology and do you think they are speaking of the same covenant?

Would this covenant be the covenant that all other promissory covenants stem from and would be the one running parallel throughout history?

As usual, I have more questions that answers but it is the only way I can bring some coherent thoughts together.

Eileen~

[Robert R. Higby]

So I just wanted to ask just a few questions about the beginning, the Covenant the Trinity entered into and the Covenants ‘in time’ beginning with Adam.

A lot of Reformed theology proposes that God entered into a separate 'covenant of redemption' in His triune being transcendent of time; this covenant is proposed to be separate from the 'covenant of grace' established in time with elect humanity. The former is proposed to be the basis of the latter.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this idea but personally do not use the terminology of 'covenant' to describe how the members of the Trinity relate to each other transcendent of time. It is true that aspects of a covenant include a bond and a pact, however, when these relational elements are projected into God's self-existence it has the potential danger of leading to process theology. So I refer to the plan of salvation through the grace of Christ only as God's transcendent eternal purpose, sticking with a monotheistic emphasis when it comes to discerning the workings of God as a Trinity. It is just as accurate to say that God does not need to make a pact with Himself because there can be no 'independent' (contrary) thinking of one member of the Trinity as distinct from another.

Would you call the command of God to Adam (pre-fall) to not eat of the tree (Gen. 2:16, 17) of knowledge of good and evil a Covenant of Works?

Although the Bible does not refer to this command as a covenant, it does have all the elements of a conditional covenant so YES. It is a covenant of works, however, in a modified sense when compared to the CT position. Traditional Covenant Theology teaches that this was a covenant of works in which Adam might have merited eternal life for himself and his prosperity. The Bible never mentions or implies this notion in the slightest. In fact, such a notion entirely goes against the supralapsarian understanding of the nature of God's eternal and transcendent Grace. Grace is in every way superior to and transcendent of the failure of any law-arrangement; works covenants are cut by God in history ONLY for the purpose of ending in failure and giving way to the everlasting covenant of Grace in Christ.

The arrangement with Adam was a covenant of continued life in the garden only. As long as Adam and Eve refrained from eating the fruit of one tree, they would continue to live in the paradise that was given them. There is no other element to it whatsoever; no other commandment or promise is involved. God’s purpose was to cause Adam to sin and forfeit the arrangement so that the everlasting covenant of grace would be his only heritage.

That would be the first law given? If so, was that covenant tied to the covenant of works given at Sinai, just with different laws? Or would you consider them two different covenants? Once broken, are they abolished with the promissory covenants?

They are different covenants of works both purposed to fail and yield to Grace. In that sense they are tied together, however, one involved a single simple commandment and the other a very long list of commandments.

The covenant given at Sinai was indeed one of works, not of grace. So Covenant Theology is wrong on this point also. The works-covenant of ‘obey and live’ existed alongside the promissory covenants but was separate from them. It promised the nation of Israel and its individual inhabitants earthly long life and blessing as long as they obeyed. It included a temporary form of atonement for sins committed in ignorance which had to be renewed day-after-day, year-after-year.

Paul is clear that the Law Covenant was established to bring wrath and make sin abound in preparation for the superiority of Grace in Christ (Rom. 5:20,2; Gal. 3:10-25; Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:13-17 ). It was a shadow of the glorious manifestation of Grace in its fullness and is now abolished (2 Cor. 3:7-11, Heb. 10:1-4).

The promise of Grace (both to Adam and Abraham) was before the Law in time; so in one sense the law was irrelevant from the beginning to the discerning elect of God!


So in Gen 3:15 we have the first promissory covenant given ‘in time’ (post-fall), the promise of Christ who would put enmity between the Seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Is this also called the anti-thesis?

Yes, the antithesis to the failed arrangement in Eden.

What would be the sign of this Covenant? Would it be the sacrifice of the animal God used to make them tunics of skin to cover their nakedness? In addition, this would point to the One that would cover the sin of all the elect?

That is generally understood to be the case by many interpreters. Ps. 50:5 is used to bolster such a view. We must remember that sacrifice was the only external sign of the promise of redemption from Adam to Abraham.

Then, is it commonly believed that the Trinity covenanted in an agreement in eternity for Christ to redeem His people? I have heard this called the Covenant of Grace, the Everlasting Covenant and the Covenant of Redemption. Are these all correct terminology and do you think they are speaking of the same covenant?

I guess I jumped ahead and answered part of this already. Yes, I believe they are all the same covenant but they refer to God unilaterally acting in Grace within time (according to His eternal, transcendent purpose) to save His elect.

Would this covenant be the covenant that all other promissory covenants stem from and would be the one running parallel throughout history?

Yes. The New Covenant is really the same thing as the everlasting Covenant of Grace; it is simply the latter swelling to its full manifestation in time.

Great subject Eileen! --Bob

[Eileen]

So I refer to the plan of salvation through the grace of Christ only as God's transcendent eternal purpose, sticking with a monotheistic emphasis when it comes to discerning the workings of God as a Trinity. It is just as accurate to say that God does not need to make a pact with Himself because there can be no 'independent' (contrary) thinking of one member of the Trinity as distinct from another.

This is certainly more understandable and actually more accurate considering that there is only one God, I had never thought of it that way. So many, I think, are afraid to be sure of His purpose as reflected in eternity. That absolutely expresses my favorite verse on this subject:

“Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. 2Ti 1:9

I don’t think CT believes that the elect had real grace before the world began.

It is a covenant of works, (the garden arrangement) however, in a modified sense when compared to the CT position. Traditional Covenant Theology teaches that this was a covenant of works in which Adam might have merited eternal life for himself and his prosperity.

I wonder if the thought is that Adam might have merited eternal life because, according to what is commonly taught, Adam was created righteous, good and holy without any proclivity to sin. Therefore he didn’t need the righteousness of Christ, he had his own to merit eternal life.

The covenant given at Sinai was indeed one of works, not of grace. So Covenant Theology is wrong on this point also. The works-covenant of ‘obey and live’ existed alongside the promissory covenants but was separate from them.

I agree. The terminology of ‘blessing for obedience, curses for disobedience’ is still used in some of the reformed arena, I have heard it and also read it in Sunday School material. This can so confuse Grace in people’s minds. I remember not going to church one Sunday because I knew the lesson was going to contain that sentiment with those specific words and I refused to hear it.

The promise of Grace (both to Adam and Abraham) was before the Law in time; so in one sense the law was irrelevant from the beginning to the discerning elect of God!

They believed the promise, how simple it seems in that light that of course the law would be irrelevant, they had the promise. Grace reigns over law!

Yes, I believe they are all the same covenant but they refer to God unilaterally acting in Grace within time (according to His eternal, transcendent purpose) to save His elect.
The New Covenant is really the same thing as the everlasting Covenant of Grace; it is simply the latter swelling to its full manifestation in time.

Spoken of in Heb: 13:20.

I have had to totally come out of ‘covenant theology’, not only in my thinking, but also in physically coming out of the church to have a clear mind. I can’t tell you how thankful I am. Truth rings clear and the scales begin to fall off.

I want to look at each covenant and understand the promise of Christ in them and also the signs, etc. so that I can reach this final New Covenant without the confusion of bringing along the Old Covenant. So I will start that and post along as I go.

Where would a discussion on why CT views the ‘church’ as replacing the nation fit in? Would that be in a Covenant discussion or a different one? Would it be simply because they consider the OC as the New, just with a new administration (whatever that means)

Oh, this is great, thanks!
Eileen~

[Robert R. Higby]

Eileen,

I certainly agree with your observations completely (re: CT and the basic a-priori assumptions supporting it)!

To answer a few more issues that you raised:

I wonder if the thought is that Adam might have merited eternal life because, according to what is commonly taught, Adam was created righteous, good and holy without any proclivity to sin. Therefore he didn’t need the righteousness of Christ, he had his own to merit eternal life.

I believe this has a great deal to do with it. Any such thinking conflicts with justification from eternity, as we have so often concluded in our discussions. The Romans 5:12-21 passage contrasting Adam and Christ is often used to try and bolster this notion. But this reasoning would have us believe that Christ in his work provided only the merits that Adam MIGHT HAVE and COULD HAVE have provided himself! In constrast, Paul emphasizes that the free gift is NOT LIKE the trespass; it does infinitely more than provide something that Adam forfeited. The point of similarity in Rom. 5 is that Adam and Christ both represented the same group of humanity in their respective failure and triumph. However, to miss the enormous and infinite CONTRAST between the place of Adam and Christ in redemptive history is very tragic indeed. Christ came to do what Adam COULD NEVER HAVE DONE because of his lack of Divine righteousness and predestination to rebellion; that is the point. Not that Christ came to achieve what Adam might have achieved himself.

The terminology of ‘blessing for obedience, curses for disobedience’ is still used in some of the reformed arena, I have heard it and also read it in Sunday School material. This can so confuse Grace in people’s minds. I remember not going to church one Sunday because I knew the lesson was going to contain that sentiment with those specific words and I refused to hear it.

Amen, as elect citizens of a better covenant we have nothing to do with such blessings and curses today!

I have had to totally come out of ‘covenant theology’, not only in my thinking, but also in physically coming out of the church to have a clear mind. I can’t tell you how thankful I am. Truth rings clear and the scales begin to fall off. I want to look at each covenant and understand the promise of Christ in them and also the signs, etc. so that I can reach this final New Covenant without the confusion of bringing along the Old Covenant. So I will start that and post along as I go.

Amen and amen!

Where would a discussion on why CT views the ‘church’ as replacing the nation fit in? Would that be in a Covenant discussion or a different one? Would it be simply because they consider the OC as the New, just with a new administration (whatever that means).


I believe such a discussion revolves around the covenant issues because the essence of CT error is drawing too strict a parallel between national Israel and the institutional 'church' as God's new 'elect nation'. Since the Sinai covenant is understood to be an administration of grace, the tendency to carry over elements of that administration into the New Covenant is very strong. The most dangerous extreme this has gone to is the heresy of conditionalism; the notion that salvation in time is conditional just like continuation in national 'blessing' for each person under the old covenant was conditional.

Bro. Bob

[Eileen]

Thank you for the response. I appreciate your understanding and knowledge.

In moving to the next covenant (Noah), I know that God’s purpose never changes but He does deal with mankind with different procedures, different requirements etc. throughout time and as time progresses. Is it wrong to call them dispensations (because of the dispensational views). Is it best to just say that He is dealing with man via new laws and new covenants to bring about His purpose.

Genesis 6:8 “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord”

Would you consider Noah and his whole family in this scripture (as He saved them all) or just Noah? Already the teaching of CT surfaces, God saves families (which of course we know that He does) and they bring this along to the NC. Noah and his family would be the remnant? Interesting that I was taught (but never did embrace) that the godly men in the OT were righteous and good in and of their selves and nary a mention that God looked upon them in the grace and favor in Christ. So this is a covenant of grace and promise.

Genesis 8:20 “And Noah built an altar unto the LORD, and he took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar:

It was a sweet smelling savor to the LORD, is that because these burnt offerings were a sacrifice and represented the promise of redemption, although not the sign? Is this a significant part of this covenant and is Christ represented here?

Genesis 9:11-13 The rainbow as the sign

The promise: that God will never again destroy all the inhabitants of the earth or the earth itself with flood waters and the promise of the continuation of day/night, seed/harvest, cold/heat and summer/winter. The preservation of the earth and mankind.

• It’s interesting in Genesis 9:16 that God says He will look upon the rainbow that He may remember the everlasting covenant. We know the He doesn’t have to look upon the rainbow to remember, is it the language of the Scripture for our benefit, to comfort and remind Noah and us that He will keep His promise?

The new requirements: blood must not be eaten, capital punishment ordained by God for murder, be fruitful and multiply.

I was told one time that by eating, for instance, a rare steak I would be eating blood. I don’t think that is what the Scripture means, does it? It seems that it would simply mean that you must kill the animal and dress it (as we all know how to dress wild game), therefore the life in the blood would be gone.

Was this a common practice as it is given again in the NT in Acts 15: 20, all these requirements still in effect because it is an everlasting covenant? Gen 9:16

So the covenant with Noah is one of grace and preservation. Is there something represented that I have overlooked?

Eileen~

[Robert R. Higby]

Responses on the Noahic Covenant:

Would you consider Noah and his whole family in this scripture (as He saved them all) or just Noah? Already the teaching of CT surfaces, God saves families (which of course we know that He does) and they bring this along to the NC. Noah and his family would be the remnant?

The rainbow covenant was not established until after the flood, so the fact that Noah was a recipient of the Lord's grace before the flood is not related specifically to that covenant. No, grace in this context does not apply to Noah's family (in the salvific sense) but only to him. The family benefited from a secondary sense only--preservation IN THIS LIFE from the impending destruction. Much like how God throughout history has preserved a geographic area from total destruction for the sake of His elect within that area.

Not all of Noah's family were necessarily elect--from what we learn later about Ham it would appear that he certainly may not have been elect to eternal salvation.

Interesting that I was taught (but never did embrace) that the godly men in the OT were righteous and good in and of their selves and nary a mention that God looked upon them in the grace and favor in Christ. So this is a covenant of grace and promise.

You are right and whoever taught this was wrong!

It was a sweet smelling savor to the LORD, is that because these burnt offerings were a sacrifice and represented the promise of redemption, although not the sign? Is this a significant part of this covenant and is Christ represented here?

The sacrifice, when administered in faith, had been a sign or figure of PERSONAL redemption in Christ from Adam on. It was the ONLY sign of this sort until circumcision was given to Abraham; some might argue that the rainbow covenant might in one sense be an exception to that. The rainbow was given in addition to the sacrifice; sacrifice was not new at this point.

Genesis 9:11-13 The rainbow as the sign.

The promise: that God will never again destroy all the inhabitants of the earth or the earth itself with flood waters and the promise of the continuation of day/night, seed/harvest, cold/heat and summer/winter. The preservation of the earth and mankind.

• It’s interesting in Genesis 9:16 that God says He will look upon the rainbow that He may remember the everlasting covenant. We know the He doesn’t have to look upon the rainbow to remember, is it the language of the Scripture for our benefit, to comfort and remind Noah and us that He will keep His promise?

Yes, the rainbow is both a covenant with mankind in general to preserve the earth eternally and a reminder to the elect of the promise of eternal salvation in a renewed Earth through the grace of Christ. The rainbow only assures EVERY person that God will preserve the Earth, it does not assure ANY person in and of itself that he/she will be included in the everlasting New Earth!

The new requirements: blood must not be eaten, capital punishment ordained by God for murder, be fruitful and multiply.

I was told one time that by eating, for instance, a rare steak I would be eating blood. I don’t think that is what the Scripture means, does it? It seems that it would simply mean that you must kill the animal and dress it (as we all know how to dress wild game), therefore the life in the blood would be gone.

Was this a common practice as it is given again in the NT in Acts 15: 20, all these requirements still in effect because it is an everlasting covenant? Gen 9:16

So the covenant with Noah is one of grace and preservation. Is there something represented that I have overlooked?

This has been generally understood throughout history as referring to the bleeding of animals after slaughter before consuming them as meat. It does not refer to the soaking out of every possible vestige of blood from the meat--that notion was an extreme of Talmudic Judaism that had no historical basis.

I believe that these requirements are simply a repetition of what should have been practiced before the flood but had been neglected. 'Be fruitful and multiply' was there from the beginning; the other two commands are not explicit in the recorded scriptures before the flood but I believe they were what was considered obvious and legitimate practice by those with sound reasoning minds who feared God. God is commanding mankind as a result of the UNCONDITIONAL promissory rainbow covenant to practice things that should have been practiced before the flood but were neglected. For instance, murder was rampant before the flood because capital punishment was not consistently enforced.

[Eileen]

Thank you for the further responses.

I certainly agree that the Scripture says that only Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. I think CT uses the fact that they were all physically saved to mean more than the Scripture allows. We know that there are benefits to anyone living among the elect. The children, the spouses, etc. are set apart, sanctified by the believer. (1 Cor 7:14)

I see that the rainbow covenant isn’t the promise of redemption, only the sacrifice would point to that and only for the believer. It was Noah who built the altar and offered the sacrifice and it was the first thing he did upon leaving the ark.

Thanks for the broader thoughts on the rainbow, not only as a promise to preserve the earth but as a reminder to us of eternal salvation in the renewed Earth. (Rev 21:1) I will remember all of His promises the next time the Lord blesses me with the rainbow.

Eileen~

[Eileen]

The Abrahamic Covenant!

Because this covenant has so many different interpretations, different teachings, it is difficult to start at point A and proceed, but certainly worth a try. It seems to me in my study and reading that there are several things that I need to ask.

One is if the promises to Abraham are to be a physical or a spiritual fulfillment (land and descendents) or a combination of both. In addition, are we to let the New Testament be our interpretation of the OT? How do the covenant promises relate to the nation of Israel and believers today?

Genesis 12:1-3 God first called Abraham out of his country to a land that He would show him, He would make him a great nation and all the families of the earth would be blessed.

In Genesis 15 God promises to Abraham a son from his own body, He promises him that his seed would be as innumerable as the stars and that he would inherit the land he was sojourning in. Abraham asks; ‘how can I know that I will inherit it” and the Lord gives us ALL the answer to Abraham’s question by making use of the customary covenant-making procedure of the day. This was the cutting of animals and the passing between the pieces, in this case, the Lord ONLY passing between the pieces. Abraham could have full assurance that the Lord Himself took the most solemn oath “May I be cut in pieces just as these animals have been mutilated if I fail to fulfill my promises” This is truly the meaning of UNCONDITIONAL and why we can have the same assurance that Abraham did.

In Genesis 17:7-8 we have God affirming the covenant He had made with Abraham.

“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. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

Do you think it is correct to ask and apply the above questions to come to an understanding of this covenant? Is it always correct to interpret the OT with the NT and to find our answers there? I think especially of Romans, Galatians and Hebrews giving answers to who is truly Abraham’s seed and to whom the promises were made and our knowledge of the new and better covenant and exactly what it replaced and how it was fulfilled. Big questions I know, just a start.

Eileen~

[Robert R. Higby]

Conditionalism is the one of the greatest delusions that God has sent throughout the history of the great apostasy. I have faced this teaching in every sect, church, study group, or pastor's fellowship I have ever been a part of. The arguments to support it are always the same & the final confidence of individuals who believe it lies in will-worship (idolatry of one's own choices).

For those of us whom the Lord has graciously baptized with the Spirit of Truth, there will never be rest in the work of opposing the heresy of conditional covenant. The unconditional Grace covenant in Christ's person and work is our very life, hope, and the heart of the gospel.

As you correctly observed, Eileen, there were no conditions for Abraham to fulfill in the covenant with Abraham. God alone passed through the pieces of the animal!

[Eileen]

I’m putting down in a very simplified manner some of my thoughts on this subject. I’ve searched the scriptures and read some material and so as I answered my own questions I came to the following.

The New Testament has to be our interpretation of the OT because in it we find the fulfillment of all the promises in Christ. So finding our answers there is paramount. Otherwise we stay in the old with the types, the shadows, the law and the nation of Israel, or we have the tendency to bring those same things forward into the New. Hebrews is very explicit, the old (Sinai) is decayed, old and ready to vanish with the New; there should be no mistake about that. However, the law covenant (Sinai), a covenant of works, didn’t annul the covenant with Abraham because the inheritance is by promise, not by law. (Galatians)

The promise

The promise is always the promise of Christ. The promise that Christ, the SEED, will be the Savior of His people and will bless His people with all spiritual blessings in Him. Eph 1:3 Jer 31:31-34

Who is Abraham’s seed?

“For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed (physical) of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” Romans 9:6-8

“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not. And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ” Galatians3:16

And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:29

The promise can only be to the elect because only the elect are Christ’s, only the elect are heirs to the promise. That seems so simple to me in just the above verses. It is plain that the flesh, the physical descendents are not ALL children of the promise. That would apply to Abraham and believers as well. Yet many want to make the promise to all the physical children of believers, conditioned upon faith. Herman Hoeksema, although a Covenant Theologian, was slandered and ignored by the church world for his unwavering convictions that the Covenant was unilateral, unconditional and only elect children of believer’s were included. He was right! Only the elect are in the Covenant period.

“For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen”. God keeps all of His promises. 2 Co 1:20

Does anyone know the reasoning behind the idea that the ‘visible church’ has replaced Israel, the nation? Would it be because of the belief that there is only one Covenant and perhaps that the ‘church’ is called a ‘nation’ in the NT?

Just a little further along in my studies!

Eileen~

[beloved57]

eilene says

Does anyone know the reasoning behind the idea that the ‘visible church’ has replaced Israel, the nation? Would it be because of the belief that there is only one Covenant and perhaps that the ‘church’ is called a ‘nation’ in the NT?

Just a little further along in my studies!

Hi eilene,

I believe the confusion arises from not understanding the difference between the national covenent by which all physical Jews were admitted into this national covenent by physical birth.. This covenent however that designated the jews as Gods people has been set aside and replaced by the new and better covenant established not by physical birth but by newbirth..

heb 8:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


This covenant brings the children of promise a newbirth into the spiritual covenent community..

gal 6:

14But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

15For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Those who walk according to the rule as to have been given to understnd that they have been recipients of the new covenant blessings procured by effectuated into their lives by what christ accomplished through his cross and shed blood..

14But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

A lot of the reformed folk dont distinguish this change in the covenent dealings with the elect of God..

Before they were born into covenent relationship by physical birth into the jewish race..now you are only born into the covenent relationship by the newbirth of the spirit of God and then when the spirit gives us faith to believe our covenent relationship is made manifest and we are declared the children of God..

Jn 1:


12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

You always ask good thought provoking questions..thanks

[Eileen]

eilene says
Hi eilene,

I believe the confusion arises from not understanding the difference between the national covenent by which all physical Jews were admitted into this national covenent by physical birth.. This covenent however that designated the jews as Gods people has been set aside and replaced by the new and better covenant established not by physical birth but by newbirth..

heb 8:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


This covenant brings the children of promise a newbirth into the spiritual covenent community..

gal 6:

14But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

15For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Those who walk according to the rule as to have been given to understnd that they have been recipients of the new covenant blessings procured by effectuated into their lives by what christ accomplished through his cross and shed blood..

14But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

A lot of the reformed folk dont distinguish this change in the covenent dealings with the elect of God..

Before they were born into covenent relationship by physical birth into the jewish race..now you are only born into the covenent relationship by the newbirth of the spirit of God and then when the spirit gives us faith to believe our covenent relationship is made manifest and we are declared the children of God..

Jn 1:


12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

You always ask good thought provoking questions..thanks

Thank you Darryl, I agree with you. My question was geared towards trying to understand if there was something that perhaps I was missing in the equation of WHY my reformed brethren have a different understanding of the Scriptures, especially those in Hebrews. As I said in my post, those scriptures are explicit that the OC has been done away and replaced by the New and I was trying to see HOW they get around those particular scriptures, including the references in Galatians.

Part is certainly that they believe the Covenant at Sinai was a grace covenant and not a legal covenant, but even with that the NT still tells us the Covenant at Sinai has been done away. The OC had a gracious purpose but was not a Covenant of Grace.

There is no specific scripture for the ‘two administrations’ of the one covenant so I think I am missing something in their understanding. I like to try and have the basic thrust of both sides. I think in this case I’m not going to. All my years in Covenant Theology, I didn’t ask for the reasoning, I should have.


Eileen~

[beloved57]

eilene says

The OC had a gracious purpose but was not a Covenant of Grace.

Would you say that the gracious purpose element[ of the ot] was to point the heirs to the everlasting covenent of grace ?

[Eileen]

eilene says

Would you say that the gracious purpose element[ of the ot] was to point the heirs to the everlasting covenent of grace ?

I thought about this for a time and although we may be ending up in the same place I wouldn’t quite say it like you have above. I would say this is/was the gracious purpose of the law:

“Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” Galatians 3:24

“Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more” Romans 5:20

God’s purpose to the elect is and always has been the Grace given us in Christ. The law condemns everyone and drives us, the elect to Christ, so that we will rest in Him and His obedience. Many people live and die in Christ and never know the talk of covenants, they do however know Christ.

Have you read the article on MCT and also have you read the thread entitled “ The Parallel Covenant”. Regarding the Covenant of Grace, MCT says this and I agree.

“There is a covenant of grace which is best understood as the new covenant instituted in eternity and constituted on the cross. All the elect of all ages are partakers of the covenant of grace”

“The covenant of grace is best understood as the new covenant which is an overarching covenant and represented in all other covenants excluding administrations of the covenant of works”

Eileen~

[beloved57]

eilene

I thought about this for a time and although we may be ending up in the same place I wouldn’t quite say it like you have above. I would say this is/was the gracious purpose of the law:

“Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” Galatians 3:24

Agreed

God’s purpose to the elect is and always has been the Grace given us in Christ. The law condemns everyone and drives us, the elect to Christ, so that we will rest in Him and His obedience. Many people live and die in Christ and never know the talk of covenants, they do however know Christ.

I agree with most here except that the law does not condemned everyone , I believe jesus brought that point out when He says..

matt 9

13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The righteous here are those who have been left to themselves and their native self righteosness and actuall y delusionally believe they are righteous much like the mind set of paul in phil 3:


4Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Of course paul being one of Gods elect eventually came to understand the true purpose of the law ..

rom 7:

7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

And I am sure you see what I am driving at..

Have you read the article on MCT and also have you read the thread entitled “ The Parallel Covenant”. Regarding the Covenant of Grace, MCT says this and I agree.

“There is a covenant of grace which is best understood as the new covenant instituted in eternity and constituted on the cross. All the elect of all ages are partakers of the covenant of grace”

“The covenant of grace is best understood as the new covenant which is an overarching covenant and represented in all other covenants excluding administrations of the covenant of works”

No I have not read that but it sounds like it would be a enjoyable read..I will try to find it..

Thanks..