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

Holy Scripture does not yield up its treasures to the indolent; and as long as the individual preacher is willing to let Dr. Scofield or Mr. Pink do his studying for him, he must not expect to make much progress in divine things. Ponder Proverbs 2:1-5!

There is no one plot of ground on earth on which will be found growing all varieties of flowers or trees, nor is there any part of the world in which may be secured representatives of every variety of butterflies. Yet by expense, industry, and perseverance, the horticulturalist and the natural historian may gradually assemble specimens of every variety until they possess a complete collection. In like manner, there is no one chapter in the Bible in which all the truth is found on any subject. It is the part of the theologian to diligently attend unto the various hints and more definite contributions scattered throughout Scripture on any given theme, and carefully classify and coordinate them. Alas, those genuine and independent theologians (those unfettered by any human system) have well-nigh disappeared from the earth.

Mr. Pink (A.W.)  The Divine Covenants

11 months ago I made a post about John Delling. Take a look at that post for the story. I went to high school with John Delling. Over a year ago he went on a rampage and murdered two people, and attempted to murder a third. One of the victims was Dave Boss, who I went to elementary, junior high, and high school with. Delling had a lot of problems and Dave was one of the few people who cared about him, and Delling shot him for it.

The courts have spent a year deciding if Delling was fit to stand trial (see my previous post for details). They have finally decided that he is fit, so things are slowly proceeding. Now, Delling’s attorney is trying for the insanity plea, even though you can’t use the insanity defense in Idaho.

That didn’t stop Delling’s attorney, public defender Gus Cahill, from filing a motion last week telling 4th District Judge Deborah Bail that he planned to put on psychological evidence during the upcoming trial that “Delling was incapable of forming mens rea” at the time of Morse’s murder.

Mens rea is a legal term for malice aforethought – the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act, including knowledge that the act is illegal, according to a legal definition provided by Princeton University. In Latin, mens rea is literally “guilty mind.”

http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/683401.html

How could John Delling not have a guilty mind? Sin. The effect of sin on the mind is extensive. We are all born totally depraved.

All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now, Delling might very well think he is innocent of the blood on his hands. Does that mean that he is in fact innocent? No. Consider, if you will, your guilt. Many of you, no doubt, believe you are innocent of your guilt before a holy God because, quite simply, you do not believe there is a God. You have no mens rea. Yet the same reason that Delling is guilty and deserves justice is exactly the same reason you are guilty and deserve justice:

the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1)

Note that envy and murder are of equal offense before God. My covetousness, my jealousy of you and the things you have, is an affront to a holy God who has shown me the wickedness of such thoughts. Can you read that list and come away with a clean conscience? If not, then you are damned, just as John Delling is. No one may use the excuse that they do not know such things are wrong, because “God has shown it to them.”  You “show that the work of the law is written on [your] heart, while [your] conscience also bears witness, and [your] conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse [you] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 2:15-16)

Though this law is written on the heart of every man, not every man acknowledges it. Rather, you and John Delling suppress that truth in unrighteousness. Far from proving your innocence, your lack of conscience is proof of your guilt: Since you did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave you up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. And if you object that you do have a conscience, that you do believe such things are wrong, then you have condemned yourself, for if they are wrong, why do you do them?

Now you, John Delling, and myself must face the judgment of God. It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27). We will face an eternal sentence for our crime. But that time is not yet. The Idaho courts are not the throne of God. The judges dispensing justice are not God. What then are they to do? How are they to judge Delling?

After God saw that the thoughts of man were only evil continually, and God destroyed the earth through a flood, saving only Noah and 7 others, God made a covenant with Noah. As we are all descendents of these 8 people, the covenant remains binding on us. Part of it reads:

…For your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.

Delling deserves death because he murdered Dave Boss. The sentence is not primarily concerned with the criminal, it is primarily concerned with upholding the image of God in creation. Delling deserves death, not because Dave was an innocent human being (before God he was not), but because Dave bore the image of God and Delling sought to destroy that image.

To prove this point, make note that God requires a reckoning from every man and from every beast. In Exodus 21, as God laid out his law for Israel, he commanded that “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned.” Delling’s attorney, if he were representing such an ox, would likely argue that the ox “was incapable of forming mens rea.” Yet such a plea would go unheard. For the command is clear:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.

Just as Delling must be killed in order to satisfy the injustice of murdering Dave Boss, an image bearer of God, so too must you be destroyed eternally in order to satisfy the injustice of your rebellion against a holy God.

Chapter VII

**This is a hypothesis very much in process. Critiques greatly welcomed.**

Of God’s Covenant with Man

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.[1]

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,[2] wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.[4]

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved,[6] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.[7]

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in 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.[8]

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel:[9] 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 foresignifying Christ to come;[10] 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,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.[12]

VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] 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:[14] 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,[15] to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;[16] and is called the New Testament.[17] There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.[18]

Now what I mean is this: Until recently, my understanding of covenant theology was largely limited to it’s contrast with dispensationalism. I was shown how the church is the true Israel of God, that the church is not a parenthesis between God’s real ultimate plan for the physical descendants of Abraham and how anyone who has ever been saved, from Adam to Abraham, to Moses, to David, was saved by faith in the work of Jesus Christ.

I saw that national Israel was a shadow, a type of the church. Reading Ezekial 36 and Jeremiah 31, I saw how God had saved the true Israel (Adam and Abraham and Moses and David) by replacing their heart of stone with a heart of flesh, by writing his law on their hearts, and by forgiving their iniquity and remembering their sin no more. In essence, I saw how Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David were members of the New Covenant, the only covenant of which Jesus Christ is the Great High Priest.

But as I began studying covenant theology, I became greatly confused as I learned that my understanding of covenant theology (which had simply been informed very early on by reading the exegesis of Jeremiah 31 in A Reformed Baptist Manifesto) was not in fact what is commonly understood as covenant theology.

Israel/Church

For example, I began reading how national Israel was not a type of the church. National Israel actually was the church, just under a previous dispensation or administration. The argument being that God has always saved man through the Covenant of Grace and that national Israel, the Mosaic covenant, was a dispensation or administration of that one single Covenant of Grace.

Several months ago I read John Reisinger’s Abraham’s Four Seeds. One thing that stuck out, that I found frustrating, was Reisinger’s insistence that covenant theology identifies national Israel with the church. I thought that was a terrible mis-characterization of covenant theology. I didn’t believe that and I believed covenant theology. Well, now that I have actually started to study covenant theology I realize that he was right. While I don’t agree with other things in the book, I do find myself in agreement with this oft-repeated quote:

Dispensationalism cannot get Israel and the church together in any sense whatsoever, and Covenant Theology cannot get them apart.

Is the New Covenant Eternal?

Likewise, I was shocked to read Samuel Waldron’s Exposition of the London Baptist Confession and read that this single overarching Covenant of Grace is not, in fact, the same thing as the New Covenant. The New Covenant, he argues, was not inaugurated until the advent of Christ. Thus the New Covenant (as described in Jeremiah 31) is only a particular dispensation or administration of the Covenant of Grace.

James White seems to agree with this view when he says:

So, if some in the Old Covenant experienced these divine works of grace, but most did not, what then is to be concluded? That the newness of the New Covenant is seen in the extensiveness of the expression of God’s grace to all in it. It is an exhaustive demonstration of grace, for all in the New Covenant experience all that is inherent in
the covenant in the blood of the Son of God….

…Hence, when we read, “God’s law, the transcript of his holiness and his expectations for his people, was already on the hearts of his people, and so is not new in the new covenant,”11 we respond by saying it is not the mere existence of the gracious act of God writing His law on the heart that is new, but it is the extensiveness of that work that is new.

The Newness of the New Covenant

So the Old Covenant was salvific, it just was not salvific for everyone in it. The newness of the New Covenant is not that it saves, but that it saves all.

I disagree.

Did the Mosaic Covenant Save?

I do not believe that the Mosaic Covenant eternally saved anyone. I do not believe it was ever intended to, and this is why I would say the WCF is dispensational. The Mosaic Covenant is not part of the Covenant of Grace. Hebrews 10:4 notes that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. But if the Mosaic Covenant did not save anyone and if the sacrificial system it established did not take away any sins, what was the point? Hebrews 9:13-14 explains:

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.

The sacrifices of the Old Covenant purified the flesh of the Israelites. That was it’s purpose. It was never intended to purify their souls because it could not. To help explain what I am saying, it is helpful to understand the debate about “republication.”

Re-Publication

Basically, the proponents of republication claim that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works. This is more than saying it is simply a republication of the law, for most all agree that the Decalogue was originally written on Adam’s heart and is not a new set of laws. Beyond saying it is a republication of the laws of the Covenant of Works, it says it is a republication of the Covenant of Works itself, the essential aspect being the re-establishment of a works based principle. For a good, short introduction to this issue, read R. Scott Clark’s 3-part blog post Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works.

Opponents to this view rightly object that since Adam’s fall, there is no hope for man to save himself by work. Even if, hypothetically, a man could perfectly obey the law, he is still under Adam’s federal headship, and thus he is still legally condemned. So God cannot be reinstating the possibility for man to save himself.

Since Adam failed the probationary test we cannot now fulfill the requirements of this covenant and since according to Romans 5 the curse of this failure continues in us since Adam was our covenantal head it would therefore not make sense that God would put us again under a covenant which had been broken by Adam’s disobedience (and our disobedience in Adam).
Covenant of Grace and the Mosaic Law

These men say that the Mosaic Covenant is not a covenant of works. The law is not given as a condition for man, but rather, as a guide to show the redeemed how to live. The prologue to the law in Deuteronomy 5 states: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” Thus the law is given to an already redeemed people to show them how to live, thus the Mosaic Covenant is all of grace. Or so the argument goes.

But the language of the Mosaic Covenant is clearly conditional.  In Deuteronomy 27:26 we read “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” And Leviticus 18:5 states “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.”

Copies and Shadows

So is the Mosaic Covenant a re-publication of the Covenant of Works or not? Well… not exactly. It is clearly a conditional covenant based upon works, but the cursing and blessing is not exactly the same. Deuteronomy 5 states:

32 You shall be careful therefore to do as the Lord your God has commanded you. You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. 33 You shall walk in all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you shall possess.

And Deuteronomy 11:

8 “You shall therefore keep the whole commandment that I command you today, that you may be strong, and go in and take possession of the land that you are going over to possess, 9 and that you may live long in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to give to them and to their offspring, a land flowing with milk and honey.

The author of Hebrews notes that the sacrificial system in Israel is a copy and a shadow of the substance, which is Christ.

Hebrews 8:4 …there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

In the same way, the Mosaic Covenant is a copy of the Covenant of Works with Adam. If Adam broke his covenant of works, he was expelled from the Garden of Eden. So to, if the nation of Israel broke it’s covenant of works, it would be expelled, or vomited from the Promised Land. And here is precisely where things begin to come into focus. Much of the covenant theology that I have read ignores the typical aspect of the Old Covenant and thus grossly misunderstands it. The entire covenant was a type, and it was not in any way part of the Covenant of Grace.

No Grace in the Mosaic Covenant?

Now, the Mosaic Covenant was not a covenant of pure works. For as soon as it was given, Moses found the Israelites worshiping an idol. The Israelites continued to break the covenant, yet they were not immediately expelled. Why? Because of the covenant that God made with Abraham. Specifically, the covenant that Christ would come from his seed (Galatians 3:15-18). Thus to expel the Israelites, to disperse them and to kill them, God would have to break his covenant with Abraham.

So how can God overlook violations of his covenant with Israel over their land? By a sacrificial system. Thus the priesthood is established and sacrifices offered as a means of purifying the flesh. It was a temporal sacrifice, that resulted in a temporal forgiveness of a temporal covenant. The entire sacrificial system of Israel was never intended to atone for anyone’s eternal damnation. Rather, it was intended to atone for their physical expulsion from the Promised Land, which is a type of the Heavenly Promised Land. And thus Hebrews begins to make much more sense:

9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

But What of Abraham?

Then how are we to view God’s covenant with Abraham? The Mosaic Covenant is clearly related to the Abrahamic Covenant. The previously quoted passage from Deuteronomy says “that you may live long in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to give to them and to their offspring.” How can we then say that the promise that God made with Abraham is conditional and based on works? That would destroy the Covenant of Grace completely.

The answer lies in letting the New Testament, God’s fullest revelation, interpret the Old.

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

Go back and read that a few times. Paul says there are two covenants. He says he is speaking allegorically, but it is not the covenants that are allegorical, but the metaphorical use of the mothers. His mention of two covenants is literal. There were two covenants with Abraham: one according to the flesh, which is national Israel, the other according to the promise, which is spiritual Israel. And that is precisely why Charles Hodge can say:

“It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one his natural descendants through Isaac, were constituted a commonwealth— an external community; by the other his spiritual descendants were constituted into a church, [invisible of course, since, at that time, the only formal organization was that of the law.] The parties to the former covenant, were God, and the nation; to the other, God, and his true people. The promises of the national covenant, were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant (i.e. the covenant of grace) were spiritual blessings, as reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant [the old] were circumcision, and obedience to the law; the conditions of the other were, and ever have been, faith in the Messiah, as ‘the seed of the woman,’ the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, [that is, the old covenant with the new] and the commonwealth founded on the one, with the church founded on the other. When Christ came, the commonwealth was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The church [now made visible] remained. There was no external covenant, nor promise of external ‘blessings, on condition of external rites, and subjection. There was a spiritual society, with spiritual promises, on condition of faith in Christ.” “The church is, therefore, in its essential nature, a company of believers, and not an external society, requiring merely external profession as the condition of membership.

Princeton Review, October 1853 (editorial comments by R. B. C. Howell The Covenants)

Unconfessional?

Does this leave me outside the bounds of orthodoxy? Hardly. The Bible is to be our test of orthodoxy and if a tradition is found to be outside the bounds of the Bible we should not be afraid to set it aside. Yet my view is not novel. It is not unconfessional. In contrast to the WCF’s dispensational view of the Covenant of Grace, the Baptist Brethren in London saw the consistent glory of the Covenant of Grace:

Chapter VII

Of God’s Covenant with Man

1._____ The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
( Luke 17:10; Job 35:7,8 )

2._____ Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth 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 eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
( Genesis 2:17; Galatians 3:10; Romans 3:20, 21; Romans 8:3; Mark 16:15, 16; John 3:16; Ezekiel 36:26, 27; John 6:44, 45; Psalms 110:3 )

3._____ This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal 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 the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.
( Genesis 3:15; Hebrews 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 11;6, 13; Romans 4:1, 2, &c.; Acts 4:12; John 8:56 )

For Further Reading:

• Works in the Mosaic Covenant: A Survey of Major Covenant Theologians :  Lee Irons  (especially read intro, conclusion, and section on John Owen)
• Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant :  Mark W. Karlberg  (read intro & conclusion)
• The Covenants :  R. B. C. Howell (second president of the SBC)
• The Divine Covenants :  A. W. Pink
• Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ :  Nehemiah Coxe & John Owen
• The Abrahamic Covenant and Baptism :  William Payne
• Southern Baptist Founders Conference 2005 Sermons :  Several lectures dealing with baptist covenant theology
• John Owen on the Covenants

Who: You, me, and other people

When: Wednesday nights, starting Jan. 14 (7-8 weeks)

Where: The Adams’ House

What: An introduction to the doctrines of grace, also known as the 5 Points of Calvinism

Why: should I care about John Calvin or what he said?

Well, the class isn’t about John Calvin, and it’s not really about what he said either. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, famed 19th century London preacher put it quite well when he explained:

“I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.”

Why does it matter though?
Why should I learn more about the gospel?
Why should I waste my time learning man’s doctrines?

First off, the doctrine’s of grace are not man’s doctrines. They are the most anti-man doctrines around. No man would invent the idea that he is wicked and depraved and unable to help himself. Yes, Matthew 15 warns against teaching the doctrines and commandments of men… but that does not mean that all doctrine is the doctrine of men. Consider what the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:6-8 “…be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.  Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness;  for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.”

Paul says we are to be trained for godliness. How? By being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine.

Mark Driscoll has a great blog post called “The Studying Christian” in which he begins by saying:

In following Jesus’ command to love God with “all our mind,” the Christian life is supposed to include regular times of study and learning. The goal of such study is to have what Paul called “the mind of Christ” so that we can live the life of Christ by the power of the Spirit of Christ.

I first took this class several years ago and it forever changed my understanding of who I am and who God is.  If you are at all interested, let me assure you this is the best possible setting to be learning in.  It will be a small group of people openly discussing the topic, and there will most likely be something good to eat each week.

If you’re interested, contact me ASAP because we like to keep the classes small.