When it comes to faith, how do you know god?

Well you don’t have to know god, you have to surrender to a mystery, the mystery of your own existence. You have to have trust in a higher consciousness or in a deeper reality even though you don’t understand it. Most importantly, you have to have meaning and purpose for living. So when people have a certain outcome, like, you know, their daughter is going to get married on such and such a date, it’s known that they will wait for that date to come before they will succumb to the illness because the significance and meaning of that event will translate into a biological response in the body. So you don’t have to be a believer in the traditional sense. Because sometimes belief can also be a cover-up for insecurity, and that is not good, because you’re actually overshadowing your insecurities by fervently believing in something that you’re not sure about, so I make a distinction between faith and belief. Faith is the ability to trust the unknown and say, I can step into the unknown and trust that in the unknown, there are possibilities. In the known, it’s just the past. What’s the known? It’s all that’s happened in the past. So the known has no creativity in it. Whereas the unknown, trusting the unknown, stepping into the mystery, and surrendering to it, and feeling at peace with it, opens you to the field of possibilities, and therefore to creativity. And healing is a response of creativity. Your body responds creatively. It heals itself.

Just thought I’d share another quote from transcription work. Please note that this utter nonsense has earned the speaker millions in book sales.

On a side note, he’s clearly not a fan of Gordon Clark in his definition of faith as distinct from belief and including trust, and his assertion that we must surrender to the mystery of a higher consciousness that we cannot understand

For a rather different answer to the question: How Does Man Know God?

And for a bit on my comment regarding faith/belief: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=238

As mentioned in a previous post, part of my job consists of doing transcription of interviews. I’ve highlighted a few quotes in the past, and below is another one:

Yeah, and you know, we’re big… we’re big believer, big Jesus people. You know, we try to live our life according to how He lived His life and praying and trying to be a good person, which is hard. But we strive to be that and it’s given us great peace…. great peace.

How on earth could that possibly give this woman great peace? How could anyone find great peace trusting in themselves to live like Jesus? If this woman had read her Bible, she would be filled with anxiety and gripped with fear. For Jesus said, “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Perhaps she thinks she does.

Jesus finds no joy in this woman.

Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

About once a year for the last 3 years I have had the opportunity to preach at my church. Last week my pastors attended the Banner of Truth Conference in Philadelphia and they asked me to prepare a message. They are currently teaching a series on the law of God. Below is a link to the sermon. The intro was not recorded, so I included it below. What I’m saying won’t make sense without it:

Hurricane Katrina of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the costliest hurricane, as well as one of the five deadliest, in the history of the United States. Among recorded Atlantic hurricanes, it was the sixth strongest overall. Hurricane Katrina formed over the Bahamas on August 23, 2005, and crossed southern Florida as a moderate Category 1 hurricane, causing some deaths and flooding there before strengthening rapidly in the Gulf of Mexico. The storm weakened before making its second landfall as a Category 3 storm on the morning of Monday, August 29 in southeast Louisiana. It caused severe destruction along the Gulf coast from central Florida to Texas, much of it due to the storm surge. The most severe loss of life and property damage occurred in New Orleans, Louisiana, which flooded as the levee system catastrophically failed, in many cases hours after the storm had moved inland. The federal flood protection system in New Orleans failed at more than fifty places. Nearly every levee in metro New Orleans was breached as Hurricane Katrina passed just east of the city limits. Eventually 80% of the city became flooded and the floodwaters lingered for weeks. At least 1,836 people lost their lives.

A levee is basically a wall that keeps water in its place. It is a boundary.
Now, is water evil? No. Water has it’s place and purpose, and a very valuable purpose, but New Orleans perished because their levees were neglected, the barrier separating the water from the land was neglected, and Hurricane Katrina overcame the city.

Jesus warns us of a similar force:
Luke 21:34-35
“But be on guard lest your hearts be overcharged with dissipation, and drunkenness, and the cares of this life – and that day [of judgment] come upon you suddenly like a trap. For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth.”

1 Peter 2:11
Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.

What comes to mind when Peter warns us against the passions of the flesh? Do you think of sex, murder, and mayhem? Hopefully through this series on the law, we will come to understand just how subtle and deceptive the passions of the flesh can be.

The 4th Commandment

Jon led us to communion after the message by quoting Matthew 11:

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

If you are interested in listening to my other sermons:

John 17:6-8

The Glory of God in Election and Reprobation

Other Portico sermons, including the current series on the law can be found http://porticochurch.com/resources.htm

I just sent out an email to my family after watching a video on Youtube.  Here’s what I sent them:

Hello Family,

I just saw a video that I want to share with you and help explain a little.

Here’s a video that does a good job of visualizing the amount of money that has been spent in the last year or less:

Keep in mind the money is either borrowed or it is printed. Most of it is printed, created out of thin air. This is inflation. Inflation is not higher prices, inflation is an increase in the money supply. Higher prices are the result of inflation. Inflation is not a natural phenomenon that just advances over time. It is a direct result of how much money is in circulation. The amount of money that has just been dumped into circulation will destroy the dollar.

Let me try an analogy: Dad’s pecan pie.
Let’s say Dad baked a pecan pie at Christmas time. Several of us had a piece, but we saved one big piece for Tony (*my brother-in-law in Iraq) in the freezer and Brittanny sent Tony a certificate that said “You are entitled to one piece of pecan pie” so that he can bring it back home with him and have his pie.

Now, let’s say that Brady got a hold of the certificate template and printed out a bunch of certificates and gave them to all his biking friends. Mom enlarged the font size of the certificate and printed several to give to other teachers at school. Bryan bribed his teachers with some more certificates, and even gave one to Nicole. And Dad printed out and gave each of his employees a certificate for one piece of pie as a Christmas bonus.

What happens when they all show up to claim their piece of pie? Well, that big piece of pie that belonged to Tony now has to be divided among all the certificates. So Tony’s piece is now maybe a single pecan, probably less. The piece that was put in the freezer for him magically shrunk.

That is what is happening with the dollar. A dollar originally represented 1 UNIT of value. What happens when more money is printed? Does the total amount of value in America increase? Does the total amount of pie increase when Brady prints a certificate? No. What the dollar represents decreases. If twice as much money is printed, then 1 dollar would = 1/2 UNIT of value. If 4x as much, then 1/4, etc. That is why a dollar put in a savings jar in 1913 is worth only $0.05!

Inflation has generally been gradual, but the system is reaching it’s end and politicians are panicking. Remember the video you just watched? That ridiculous amount of money that is being spent is being printed. They are increasing the supply of money in circulation at an uncontrollable level. It takes time for the effect of inflation to raise prices, but because these bailouts were not gradual, when the effect hits, it will be hard and fast, especially for anyone who does not receive the new money but is relying on “old” money being saved. It’s probably 12-18 months out.

The other option for Tony would have been to send him the piece of pie directly. No certificate, just the actual pie. That way it would be his and no amount of certificates could change his piece of the pie. His piece of pie would not grow bigger, it would remain the same, even if what his certificate represented decreased in value. That’s the way gold and other hard assets work. Investing in gold is not because gold will increase in value, but because it will retain it’s value while the certificates (dollars) will lose their value. (And if 1 oz of gold had been put in a jar in 1913, it would be worth 1 oz of gold today).*

Here is Ron Paul talking about inflation:

in a little more detail:

And here is Glenn Beck talking about it last October:

*No analogy is perfect. And I do not mean to imply that the dollar/certificate actually represents gold, because it no longer even does that. It represents whatever faith people have in the currency. So no faith = no value. Uh-oh.

I love Clark’s succint writing.

…But the faults of those who were too strict do not exonerate those who are too lax; and no one can deny that this age errs on the side of laxity.  I know one man and wife who could not come to church because that was the time they had to walk their dog.  Again, many fundamentalists who refuse to play dominoes or go to the movies or use lipstick on any day of the week contend that keeping the Sabbath is legalistic and have no compunctions against going on a picnic or studying their high school or college lessons.  They have made their own rules without any divine warrant, while at the same time they reject the Ten Commandments.  Note well, if keeping the Sabbath holy is legalistic, a ritualistic requirement meant only for the Mosaic dispensation, then not only is the Sabbath before Moses inexplicable, but also the first, second, sixth and other commandments are ritualistic too.  These other commandments are obviously not ritualistic, and it is hard to see how with that context the fourth alone could be such.

“What do Presbyterians Believe?”

I transcribe a lot of footage for work. I have come across some rather interesting comments that I should have been saving in an archive to discuss later. Watching raw, unedited interviews really gives you the chance to hear all the little things about what a person believes, not just the big picture.

Below is a clip from someone interviewed in regards to battling breast cancer, specifically with respect to diet:

Even the language that we use to talk about our lifestyle either has this moralistic quality, you know, “I cheated on my diet. I ate bad food, so I’m a bad person,” you know. Once you fall into that line of thinking, you might as well finish the pint of ice cream because you’re already a bad person. Moralistic things don’t work.

Or what I call these fascist words, like “patient compliance” is a creepy word. It’s about forcing people to change. Or “will power,” it’s all – things that force you to change are not sustainable. Cause what’s sustainable is joy and pleasure and freedom. And so I like the concept of a spectrum because if it’s a diet that you go on, you auto—even the word diet makes you tense up. It’s all about what you can’t have and you must do. That’s not sustainable.

But what I’ve done is to categorize foods into a spectrum from the most helpful, to the least helpful. Cause what matters most is your overall way of eating and living. And to the degree that you move in a healthy direction, you’re going to benefit. You’re going to look better, feel better, lose weight, gain health, have better immune function, and so on. How much you move and how quickly is really up to you.

So if you indulge yourself one day, it doesn’t mean you cheated or you’re bad or any of those kinds of things. Just eat healthier the next. I mean, even more than being healthy, most people want to feel free and in control. It’s human nature. It goes back to the first dietary intervention, you know, when God said, “Don’t eat the apple.” That didn’t work, and that was God talking, so, you know. It’s really about freedom and joy and pleasure. That’s really what’s sustainable.

I find those statements quite revealing in regards to the nature of fallen man. It does not matter what the issue is, man will rebel against authority because all authority reflects God’s ultimate authority over your life and all of creation. Your autonomous will must reign supreme and if anything tries to tie it down, you will defy it, no matter how bad it is for you to do so.

Obedience a Condition or Blessing in the New Covenant?

As you may have noticed, I’ve been thinking about republication and the covenants a lot lately. I find the debate surrounding the doctrine of “Republication” to be very illuminating. There is a very helpful review of “The Law is Not of Faith” on Amazon. It clearly lays out the objections to viewing Sinai as a covenant of works in any way. Below is a quote that strikes at the heart of the issue, so far as I can tell (emphasis mine):

The second essential element of a covenant of works, or the application of a works-principle, is that the obedience be “perfect.” If it does not require perfect obedience, it is not a covenant of works, nor is it strictly and properly speaking, the application of a works principle. One author is quite explicit about the fact that the Sinaitic works-covenant or works-principle did not require perfect obedience. Speaking of the similarities and differences of the old and new covenant obedience, one author says this:

“The need for perfect obedience is there (as always) for gaining eschatological life. The need for grateful obedience (the so-called third use of the law) is still there and was there in the old covenant. But the demand for sincere obedience, relative obedience (albeit imperfect) which would showcase an appropriate measure of readable obedience before the surrounding nations, has passed.”

According to this writer, the Sinai covenant and the “works principle” associated with it, required only “sincere…relative obedience (albeit imperfect).” If this is the case, the author has, by definition, rejected the idea that strictly and properly speaking, a works principle or a covenant of works was republished at Sinai. But at the beginning of the essay, the author spoke of “the republication of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant.” We repeat: if it does not require perfect obedience, it is not a covenant of works. The requirement of perfect obedience is an essential element of such covenant, is it not?

Again, this author maintains that the unique obedience required at Sinai is simply sincere, imperfect obedience. Interestingly, this is exactly the way 17th century writers described the obedience required in the new covenant or covenant of grace. John Ball, writing at the time of the Westminster Assembly, expressed the Reformed consensus regarding the obedience required in the covenant of grace in this way:

“The Covenant of Grace calleth for perfection, accepteth SINCERITY, God in mercy pardoning the IMPERFECTIONS of our best performances…The faith that is lively to imbrace mercy is ever conjoyned with an unfained purpose to walke in all well pleasing, and the sincere performance of all holy obedience, as opportunity is offered, doth ever attend that faith, whereby we continually lay hold upon the promises of life (19-20).” The same basic issue is noted by another author on pg. 301, note 30.

The covenant of grace thus accepts sincere, imperfect obedience as part of the requirements of the covenant. In this, it stands in contrast to the covenant of works. But when this author describes the obedience required in the so-called Sinaitic works covenant (or works-principle) he describes it in exactly the same way. Is that not admitting that it is essentially the same as the obedience required in the covenant of grace?

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2I9SWHD34AA7B/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

The core of the objection, as I understand it, is that the New Covenant is conditional and requires obedience, albeit imperfect obedience, through faith. But is that true? Is the New Covenant conditional? Is our work, or even our faith, a conditional requirement of the New Covenant? Or is it a blessing of the New Covenant?

Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Note what the Lord says. He does not say He will forgive their iniquity on the condition of faith. Furthermore, He does not say that faith is a requirement or condition for entering the New Covenant. What the Lord says is that regeneration is a blessing of being in the New Covenant. Thus faith and obedience, the result of regeneration, is a blessing of the New Covenant, not a condition. Faith and repentance are conditions of forgiveness, but both forgiveness and faith are blessings of the New Covenant. In so far as man is concerned, the New Covenant is unconditional. We do nothing to enter it and we can do nothing to leave it.

An essential aspect of the Old Covenant was that obedience was a requirement. This is clearly seen by the fact that they broke the covenant (v32 above) and that God divorced Himself from them. This is entirely different than the New Covenant. If we are to say that the principle of obedience required in the Old Covenant is the same as the obedience required in the New Covenant, then we must believe that the New Covenant is breakable dependent upon our obedience!

Outward Obedience

The reviewer quoted above makes another mistake, I believe, in his equating OC obedience with NC obedience. He believes that God accepted the imperfect obedience of Israel as long as it was done in faith. This means that Israelites could fall short of the covenant stipulations, but if they had faith, their shortcomings were ignored and Christ’s righteousness was seen in their stead. But that is not how the Old Covenant functioned.

“The need for perfect obedience is there (as always) for gaining eschatological life. The need for grateful obedience (the so-called third use of the law) is still there and was there in the old covenant. But the demand for sincere obedience, relative obedience (albeit imperfect) which would showcase an appropriate measure of readable obedience before the surrounding nations, has passed.”
(a quote from The Law is Not of Faith, quoted in the review)

What is the author talking about here? I don’t have the book, so I don’t know the context, but it seems clear to me he is referring to outward conformity to the law (note “showcase” and “readable”). He says that outward conformity to the law was an “appropriate measure of obedience.” But how can this be? When has outward conformity to the law ever been an “appropriate measure of obedience”?

Under the Mosaic Covenant, that’s when. But unto what end? Note the author clearly states that this outward obedience was not appropriate for “gaining eschatological life.” If gaining eschatological life was not the point, then what was the point? How about:

“that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for all time.” Deut 4:40

” …he will bless your bread and your water and I will take sickness away from among you. None shall miscarry or be barren in your land.”  Ex 23:25-26

“I will cast out nations before you and enlarge your borders; no one shall covet your land…”  Ex. 34:24

In other words, outward obedience was the requirement for temporal, typological blessings. (Which were the only blessings promised in the Mosaic Covenant). I believe that is why Paul can refer to the righteousness under the law and claim that he was blameless:

If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
Phil. 3:4-6

Commenting on this, Calvin states:

To make the matter plainer, I observe, that there are two righteousnesses of the law. The one is spiritual–perfect love to God, and our neighbors: it is contained in doctrine, and had never an existence in the life of any man. The other is literal–such as appears in the view of men [i.e. "showcase" and "readable" above], while, in the mean time, hypocrisy reigns in the heart, and there is in the sight of God nothing but iniquity. Thus, the law has two aspects; the one has an eye to God, the other to men. Paul, then, was in the judgment of men holy, and free from all censure–a rare commendation, certainly, and almost unrivaled;

Note the emphasis on “the flesh” in the Philippians passage. This parallels Hebrews 9:13-14

13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

This is important for understanding forgiveness under the Mosaic Covenant. This passage emphasizes a marked difference between the outward flesh and the inward conscience. The blessings and curses of the Mosaic Covenant were “fleshly.” Thus, the forgiveness achieved by the sacrifices of the Mosaic Covenant were also “fleshly.” The blood of bulls and goats kept them in the land. The flesh of the Israelites were purified by the sprinkling of blood on their flesh. Faith was not required for this blood to be effectual. (However, the Israelites would not actually offer those sacrifices apart from faith because of man’s stiff-necked nature, thus bringing curses upon themselves).

But the blood of Christ is not sprinkled on our flesh. It is sprinkled on our hearts. It is inward. And that is what the Lord’s Supper communicates to us. We must drink the blood of Christ because it must purify our heart. And this is only possible through faith. And I would also add that this is why sprinkling the flesh with water is an inappropriate mode of baptism. It is not the flesh that must be sprinkled, but the heart, and it is the Lord’s Supper that pictures this, not baptism.

The Westminster Confession

The reviewer goes on to note:

Interestingly, many of these phrases drop out of the revision of the Westminster Confession known as the Savoy declaration. The latter was written by six men among the party of Independents. Interestingly, a great many of the Independents maintained that the Sinaitic covenant was not a covenant of grace, but rather a covenant of works or a subservient covenant (John Owen, Gillespie, Sydrach Simpson, Jeremiah Burroughs, etc.). Interestingly, many of these key phrases are dropped in the Savoy declaration. In the parallel passage to WCF 19:2 the Savoy declaration drops the words relating the fact that the law at Sinai was delivered as a perfect rule of righteousness. It rather reads “This law, so written in the heart, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall of man; and was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments.” By dropping the words “as such” they left room for those in their number who affirmed that Sinai was a republication of a covenant of works (or a subservient covenant).

Likewise, WCF 7:5-6 is significantly abbreviated in the Savoy declaration (the section that deals with the administration of the covenant of grace in the old and new testaments). The most striking absence is the phrase (found in WCF 7:6): “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.” Apparently, the Independents behind the Savoy declaration felt that their views were unjustly excluded by the Westminster confession, and revised it accordingly. In our opinion, this is what the writers in this present volume should do as well. Instead, they cloud the issue by misreading the confession to fit their own view.

This is exactly how Owen felt. In his commentary on the book of Hebrews, he notes:

“wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely, to be intended” (XXII, p.76).

In light of this, please consider the following quote from James Renihan, taken from his introduction to Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ

We have chosen to include John Owen’s comments on Hebrews 8:6-13 alongside Coxe’s work, for several important reasons. We know, of course, that Owen was a lifelong paedobaptist, and briefly defends that view in his other writings. We do not intend, in any way, to imply that Owen would have endorsed Coxe’s (or our) objections to the paedobaptist position. Nevertheless, it has seemed good to incorporate his views into this work. The reader will notice that Coxe, in the preface to his Discourse, indicates that he was preparing materials for a subsequent volume to be written on the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, but was “happily prevented” by the publication of Owen’s volume on Hebrews chapter 8. So far as the Baptist Nehemiah Coxe was concerned, John Owen’s work on this part of Hebrews clearly articulated the things that Coxe himself would have said (and he recognized that Owen said them better as well). This does not imply that Coxe endorsed every jot and tittle of Owen’s work, but simply indicates the massive agreement between the two. Owen, for his own part, exegetically demonstrates that the New Covenant is profoundly different from the Old-it is characteristically new. For Coxe (and confessional Baptists who agree with his theology; it must be remembered that he is the most likely candidate to have served as editor of the Second London Confession of 1677/1689), Owen’s emphasis on the newness of the New Covenant is a helpful step forward in the discussion.

http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=93

And with this in mind, we can see that the London Baptist Confession, along with Savoy, rejects the view of the Mosaic Covenant in the WCF. And also that it went beyond Savoy in it’s revisions in Ch. 7, removing 7:4, 5, & 6 (and moving 7:2 to Ch. 19:1). Note especially the removal in the LBC even of Savoy’s revised 7:5.

You can see these changes side by side in an excellent table here. Interesting to note is the addition of “eternal” before “life” in 7:3/2, as well as the complete addition of Ch. 20 in both Savoy and LBC.

*If I have misunderstood or misrepresented anything in this post, please do take the time to let me know. I’m just a Christian with my bible trying to make sense of it all.

John Owen

Before reading these quotes, I humbly recommend doing what I did. Spend some time reading through Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy. Do so with a set of highlighters. Highlight every curse or blessing that is temporal/physical in green. Highlight every curse or blessing that is eternal in blue. Highlight every conditional statement or command in orange. Then go back and see how much of your bible is blue.

This covenant [Sinai] thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Cor. iii. 9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works. (Owen, Works, XXII:85-86)

“wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely, to be intended” (XXII, p.76).

Owen on the Mosaic Covenant (pilgrim people)

Herman Witsius

1. Not Formally the Covenant of Works: “1st. Because that cannot be renewed with the sinner, in such a sense as to say, if , for the future, thou shalt perfectly perform every instance of obedience, thou shalt be justified by that, according to the covenant of works. For, by this, the pardon of the former sins would be presupposed, which the covenant of works excludes. 2dly. Because God did not require perfect obedience from Israel, as a condition of this covenant, as a cause of claiming the reward; but sincere obedience, as an evidence of reverence and gratitude. 3dly. Because it did not conclude Israel under the curse, in the sense peculiar to the covenant of works, where all hope of pardon was cut off, if they sinned but in the least instance.”
2. Nor Formally the Covenant of Grace: “Because that requires not only obedience, but also promises, and bestows strength to obey. For, thus the covenant of grace is made known, Jer. xxxii. 39. ‘and I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever.’ But such a promise appears not in the covenant made at mount Sinai. Nay; God, on this very account, distinguishes the new covenant of grace from the Sinaitic, Jer. xxxi. 31-33. And Moses loudly proclaims, Deut xxix. 4. ‘yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.’ Certainly, the chosen from among Israel had obtained this. Yet not in virtue of this covenant, which stipulated obedience, but gave no power for it: but in virtue of the covenant of grace, which also belonged to them.”
3. A National Covenant Between God and Israel: “…whereby Israel promised to God a sincere obedience to all his precepts, especially to the ten words; God, on the other hand, promised to Israel, that such an observance would be acceptable to him, nor want its reward, both in this life, and in that which is to come, both as to soul and body. This reciprocal promise supposed a covenant of grace. For, without the assistance of the covenant of grace, man cannot sincerely promise that observance; and yet that an imperfect observance should be acceptable to God is wholly owing to the covenant of grace. It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works, the terror of which being increased by those tremendous signs that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace the covenant of God. This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other.”

Witsius on the Mosaic Covenant (reformed blogging)

James Buchanan

“The addition of the Law was not intended to alter either the ground, or the method, of a sinner’s justification, by substituting obedience to the Law for faith in the Promise; … Believers were justified, therefore, under the Law, not by works, but by faith: by faith, they were ‘the children of Abraham,’ and ‘heirs with him of the same promise.’ The Law–considered as a national covenant, by which their continued possession of the land of Canaan, and of all their privileges under the Theocracy, was left to depend on their external obedience to it,–might be called a national Covenant of Works, since their temporal welfare was suspended on the condition of their continued adherence to it; but, in that aspect of it, it had no relation to the spiritual salvation of individuals, otherwise than as this might be affected by their retaining, or forfeiting, their outward privileges and means of grace” (James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, pp. 38-39).
The Doctrine of Justification (Google Books)

Meredith Kline

“…the old covenant order was composed of two strata and the works principle enunciated in Leviticus 18:5, and elsewhere in the law, applied only to one of these, a secondary stratum. There was a foundational stratum having to do with the personal attainment of the eternal kingdom of salvation and this underlying stratum, continuous with all preceding and succeeding administrations of the Lord’s Covenant of Grace with the church, was informed by the principle of grace (cf., e.g., Rom 4:16). Because the Abrahamic covenant of promise found continuity in the Mosaic order at this underlying level, it was not abrogated by the latter. The works principle in the Mosaic order was confined to the typological sphere of the provisional earthly kingdom which was superimposed as a secondary overlay on the foundational stratum… The Israelite people corporately could maintain their continuing tenure as the theocratic kingdom in the promised land only as they maintined the appropriate measure of national fidelity to their heavenly King.”

Quoted in “Works in the Mosaic Covenant” Lee Irons
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/works_in_mosaic_cov.pdf

Michael Horton

“Many critics of federal theology misunderstand the tradition to be saying that the entire theocratic period as a works arrangement (i.e., that Old Testament believers were justified by their personal obedience). But this fails to recognize the nuances in classic covenant theology at this point; namely, that national Israel, with Moses as its mediator, is not the equivalent to the covenant of grace, with Christ as its mediator in both testaments. The two exist side by side throughout the theocratic era, one operating as a typological earthly kingdom on a works principle; the other operating as a spiritual kingdom on the grace principle. Meredeth Kline is a masterful exegete, but he is hardly the first to articulate these views.

As Paul makes clear in Galatians (especially chapter 3), there was the heavenly Zion and its way of salvation (grace alone through faith alone) and a typological earthly Zion and its way of national preservation (conditioned upon her obedience). The inheritance of the typological land was based on law, while the heavenly rest was based on promise, Paul insists. It is not an either/or here, but two distinct operations: the typological land promises indicating in a shadowy, figurative way what was to come when the true Israel would come and perfectly fulfill God’s commands and the spiritual promises in which individual Israelites rested just as we do today (Heb. 4:1-5).”

http://spindleworks.com/library/CR/horton.htm

R. Scott Clark

“Israel was under a typological, not soteriological covenant of works. It’s a post-lapsarian, typological covenant of works.”

-on the Puritanboard: Horton, the Mosaic Covenant, and the WCF

GENESIS

What is a covenant?
What was the tower of Babel?
Why does it matter that Nimrod was a mighty hunter?
How old is the earth?
Will we see Adam in heaven? How?
Did Abraham believe in Christ?
Was Noah really 950 years old?
Why was Abraham commanded to slaughter his son?
What happened between Ham and Noah?
Must we conduct courtship near wells?
Your question here:

Who: Me teaching + you & other people studying and learning

What: A weekly study through the book of Genesis

Where: 146 N. Grand St. (Portico Classroom)
Orange, CA 92866

When: Every Wednesday night, 7-8:30 (starting 3/25)

Why: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

How: Show up, ask questions, listen

The name of my blog is contrast. If you take a look on the about page, you will see why I chose that name. I believe that contrast is essential to learning. We learn what something is by learning what it is not. Now, a lot of what I have been thinking about regarding the covenants has to do with types and antitypes. Isaac was a type. Christ was the antitype. There were many similarities between Isaac and Christ and certainly we can see much of God’s plan of Redemption foreshadowed in Isaac. Yet Isaac is not Christ.

This seems clear enough, but when we begin to talk about the nation of Israel, suddenly the blender gets switched on.

A good example of this is the discussion I have read regarding Law and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant. This post from Mark Jones is a good example of the problem (IMO): Law and Grace at Sinai. Give it a read if you’re not familiar with what I am referring to, or this Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works from R. Scott Clark.

Basically, proponents of Re-Publication see the obvious conditional statements in the Mosaic Covenant and thus argue that it is a Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works. Opponents of this rightly say Sinai cannot possibly be a Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works for various reasons. But they then conclude that the Mosaic Covenant is entirely gracious!

The way they do so is they compare Israel with the church. Or, rather, they say Israel is the church. They then say that our salvation in Jesus Christ does not exempt us from work. Though we are justified, our sanctification involves us working and bearing the fruit of our justification. The same thing is true of Israel, they say. Israel was saved out of slavery in Egypt and brought to the Promised Land. Thus the Mosaic Covenant is a law given to an already redeemed people, not as a requirement for them, but rather as a means of sanctification.

An example from Mark Jones:

I think we also need to recognize that there are unconditional promises and conditional promises in Scripture.  A promise doesn’t somehow lose its promissory value because there are conditions attached.  And this principle is not limited to the OT. Just read 1 Peter 1 (esp. 1:8; 1:9; 1:17; 2:2; 2:19-20; 3:1-2; 3:7; 4:14; 5:7; 5:9-10).  Right conduct in Peter leads to blessing.  Peter hasn’t somehow becomes a Judaizer!

Notice what he is doing. He is attempting to view everything in Scripture through the lens of the New Covenant. In the New Covenant, members are justified and eternally saved by grace apart from works, and the law is a response and a means of blessing – therefore it must be the same in the Old Covenant!

His reasoning goes something like this:

The Mosaic covenant includes Exodus 17-24, not just chapter 20.  In chapter 19 the call for obedience to God’s commands is based on redemption.  In fact, imperatives in Scripture are based on the indicative (see Ex. 20; Deut. 26; Eph. 1-6; 1 Peter 1; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Rom 6).  Israel, in chapter 19 of Exodus are God’s people!

Note what he is referring to: Ex. 20:2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” God “redeemed” Israel from slavery in Egypt. They no longer belonged to Israel, but now they are “God’s people.” This is a beautiful type of our salvation in Christ. But it is a type. It is not actual eternal salvation through faith. The nation of Israel was not “God’s people” in the same way that members of the New Covenant are “God’s people” (though certainly individual true believers existed within Israel).

Continuing in his defense for viewing the Mosaic Covenant as pure grace, Mark notes:

These verses speak of the glorious privileges of being bondservants to the Lord.  What a perversion to treat the law as a burden when we are talking in the realm of having been redeemed.  Notice the rewards: prosperity, life, and righteousness!  This might be offensive but we clearly read that Moses is assuming belief and thus they are in a position to be righteous as they keep his commands.

Woah, wait a minute. I thought we were talking about how God “redeemed” Israel out of Egypt. Now we’re supposed to understand redeemed to mean that God gave the entire nation of Israel new hearts and justified them by the blood of Christ, producing in them true faith? What happened to Israel’s redemption being a type? Do you see the jump that was made from type to antitype?

The issue here is that the Mosaic Covenant is clearly works based. In order to get around this, Mark and others say that the Old Covenant is essentially the same as the New Covenant. And thus they interpret the Old Covenant along New Covenant lines.

In the end, I’m happy with the WCF; I’m happy to vigorously separate law and grace in justification, but in sanctification (obedience) I see a basic pattern in Scripture that allows me to posit a single covenant of grace in the history of redemption.

So Mark solves the dilemma by claiming that the Mosaic Covenant is concerned only with sanctification for a redeemed people. But this is quite absurd. I would not call exile and famine sanctification. I would call it a curse.

In bringing the issue into the New Testament and trying to understand Paul’s commentary on the Mosaic Covenant in Galatians, Mark notes that “The Judaizers had abused Moses.” This is true, but how exactly? Mark would seem to be saying that the Judaizers abused Moses by thinking that obedience to the Mosaic Covenant earned them something, when in reality they should have viewed it as a proper response to already being redeemed, and that it did not earn them anything.

I disagree. I believe that the Judaizers’ abuse of Moses was their belief that the Mosaic Covenant was about eternal life. It never was. It was about temporal life and temporal blessings. And they had to work for those temporal blessings, or they would be physically cursed and/or physically killed. The error of the Judaizers was not their proper understanding of the merit basis of the Mosaic Covenant. Their error was a misunderstanding of the blessings promised by the Mosaic Covenant. Eternal life was never offered as a reward for adherence to the law of Moses.

And thus I would close by paralleling Mark. I am not happy with the WCF. I am not happy to conflate the type with the antitype. I do not see the Mosaic Covenant as “an administration” of the New Covenant of Grace.

There is no doubt in my mind that many have been led astray when considering the typical teaching of Israel’s history and the antitype in the experience of Christians, by failing to duly note the contrasts as well as the comparisons between them. It is true that God’s deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt blessedly foreshadowed the redemption of His elect form sin and Satan; yet let it not be forgotten that the majority of those who were emancipated from Pharaoh’s slavery perished in the wilderness, not being suffered to enter the promised land.

Nor are we left to mere reasoning at this point: it is placed upon inspired record that “behold, the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah: not 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” (Heb. 8:8,9).

Thus we have divine authority for saying that God’s dealings with Israel at Sinai were not a parallel with His dealings with His people under the gospel, but a contrast!

-Mr. Pink, The Divine Covenants