Covenant/ Justification

[Iconoclast]

Tom Hicks is at it again......looks good. What do you think?
see the whole blog here;
http://theblog.founders.org/benjamin-keachs-covenant-theology-and-justification/

Benjamin Keach (1640-1704), one of our early English Baptist forefathers, taught that the doctrine of justification was inextricably bound up with the biblical doctrine of the covenants, and especially with the covenant of grace

[QUOTE]In the first section of the work, Keach explained that he had previously been convinced of a distinction between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption, but upon further study, he was persuaded that they are the same covenant.

4 There is one covenant of grace with two distinct parts. One part of the covenant of grace is made with Christ the mediator, and the other part is made with all of the elect in him.

Keach believed that to separate these two parts of the covenant of grace into two different covenants tends to separate Christ from the redemption of his people and opens the way for men to rely upon their own holiness for justification. He therefore sought to show that the doctrine of one eternal covenant of grace is biblical, that it stands against all objections, that it is interconnected with the rest of biblical doctrine, and that it brings great comfort to the souls of believers.[/QUOTE]

 

[Iconoclast]

Do you think the Covenant of works was offered once or twice?

Basic Argument

Keach argued from Scripture that the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are the same covenant. According to Keach, the Bible never recognizes three overarching covenants, but only two: the covenant with Adam and the covenant with Christ. Romans five contrasts these two covenant heads only (Rom 5:12-21), and just as there is one covenant with Adam and all who are in him, so also is there one covenant with Christ and all who are in him.

5 Keach affirmed that the Bible reveals two administrations of the covenant of works.

The first administration appeared in the garden before Adam’s fall. That garden covenant promised eternal life to Adam on the condition of his perfect obedience to God’s law and threatened eternal death for sin.6 Beyond that first edition of the covenant of works, Keach wrote that “there was another Edition or Administration of it given to Israel, which tho’ it was a Covenant of Works, i.e. Do this and live, yet it was not given by the Lord to the same End and Design. . . . It was not given to justify them.”7 Referencing John Owen’s work, Keach argued that the Mosaic covenant given to the Israelite nation serves to reveal God’s perfect holiness.8 It also serves to prove that sinners, who are without such perfect holiness, can never be justified in God’s sight. Therefore, one function of the Mosaic covenant is to drive men outside of themselves, away from their own righteousness, and to the alien righteousness of Christ for justification (Rom 3:19-20; Gal 3:21-22).

Do you agree with two versions of the covenant of works?

 

[Internet Theologian]

Do you think the Covenant of works was offered once or twice?



Do you agree with two versions of the covenant of works?

Sounds good to me. What other arguments are there though?

I think one starting point for believers is to accept the fact that God commands, and demands, that which we cannot do. It is for a purpose though, as Keach states, to make us dependent upon God, not self. I believe that is the major purpose of the Law, to effect that, and to show God's holiness. I don't dismiss the law as only for the Jews only (Israel) as some do. I think it is inconsistent to say that we are true Israel, Philippians 3:3; Romans 2:29; Romans 9:6ff; Galatians 6:16, which worship God from the heart, and apply that to ourselves, and other OT passages to ourselves, and then dismiss the Law's importance to all men and say it was only for Israel. It seems to be an inconsistent hermeneutic imo.

 

[Iconoclast]

Sounds good to me. What other arguments are there though?

I think one starting point for believers is to accept the fact that God commands, and demands, that which we cannot do. It is for a purpose though, as Keach states, to make us dependent upon God, not self. I believe that is the major purpose of the Law, to effect that, and to show God's holiness. I don't dismiss the law as only for the Jews only (Israel) as some do. I think it is inconsistent to say that we are true Israel, Philippians 3:3; Romans 2:29; Romans 9:6ff; Galatians 6:16, which worship God from the heart, and apply that to ourselves, and other OT passages to ourselves, and then dismiss the Law's importance to all men and say it was only for Israel. It seems to be an inconsistent hermeneutic imo.

This kind of study and thinking go a long way toward keeping us on track in our service to God.
It would be nice if we had 6 or 7 Benjamin Keach around to provoke such thought.
There is a debate of sorts that goes around with this whole area of teaching that kind of bewilders me....lol.
I think I wind up reading theonomists guys because they are the only ones who get into the topic.
I will offer more when I get to a keyboard board later. .

This job interfere s with my posting....lol

 

[Iconoclast]

Internet Theologian

Sounds good to me. What other arguments are there though?

I like what I see when I read Benjamin Keach....I have two of his books.

I think one starting point for believers is to accept the fact that God commands, and demands, that which we cannot do. It is for a purpose though, as Keach states, to make us dependent upon God, not self.

I believe that is the major purpose of the Law, to effect that, and to show God's holiness. I don't dismiss the law as only for the Jews only (Israel) as some do. I think it is inconsistent to say that we are true Israel, Philippians 3:3; Romans 2:29; Romans 9:6ff; Galatians 6:16, which worship God from the heart, and apply that to ourselves, and other OT passages to ourselves, and then dismiss the Law's importance to all men and say it was only for Israel. It seems to be an inconsistent hermeneutic imo.

I have much to learn in this area. Here are some links that I have not sorted through yet.....

https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/republication-of-the-covenant-of-works-2/
http://heidelblog.net/category/republication-of-the-covenant-of-works/

 

[agedman]

Sounds good to me. What other arguments are there though?

I think one starting point for believers is to accept the fact that God commands, and demands, that which we cannot do.

I do not disagree.

So other readers might understand, perhaps it would be good for you to attend to Philippians 4 in the context of the above statement:

"10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity. 11 Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. 12 I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. 13 I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. 14 Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction."​

Too often this passage is used (inappropriately imo) to bolster some major effort or achievement. But the teaching is that of the Lord's wondrous sustaining in the place and conditions of that place God has appointed to them.

This passage is extremely hazardous to those who teach the health and wealth gospel, and to those who look at the blessings of God as some indication of the standing and relationship of the believer to God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you think the Covenant of works was offered once or twice?
Do you agree with two versions of the covenant of works?

I have a difficulty with the idea that the Mosaic (Sinaitic) Covenant was a republication of the covenant of works.
If Adam, who came perfect and sinless from the hands of God could not keep the covenant, what chance did sinful Israelites have? The very existence of the various sacrifices shows that God did not expect the covenant to be kept.

have you ever read A.W. Pink's Divine Covenants? I think he gives an excellent rationale of the Sinaitic Covenant. I will see if I can cut and paste something if I have time.

In the meantime, you might like to read this:
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/the-covenants-part-v-the-sinaitic-mosaic-covenant/

 

[Iconoclast]

I have a difficulty with the idea that the Mosaic (Sinaitic) Covenant was a republication of the covenant of works.
If Adam, who came perfect and sinless from the hands of God could not keep the covenant, what chance did sinful Israelites have? The very existence of the various sacrifices shows that God did not expect the covenant to be kept.

have you ever read A.W. Pink's Divine Covenants? I think he gives an excellent rationale of the Sinaitic Covenant. I will see if I can cut and paste something if I have time.

In the meantime, you might like to read this:
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/the-covenants-part-v-the-sinaitic-mosaic-covenant/

Hello MM
I have a friend who says this issue made him switch over to being a presbyterian.....I do not see it......I will post his blog posts later on...... I do not see the issue clearly enough.
Good article thanks for posting it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hello MM
I have a friend who says this issue made him switch over to being a presbyterian.....I do not see it......I will post his blog posts later on...... I do not see the issue clearly enough.
Good article thanks for posting it.

Oh crumbs! There's no reason to do that! The Presbyterian idea is that the covenants are all one and the new covenant is really the 'renewed covenant.' That is balderdash. Jer. 31:31ff tells us that the new covenant is just that- New- and that it is 'not according to' the sinaitic covenant. There are vast and important differences.

I think the easiest and simplest way to express the difference is that the Sinaitic covenant was made with the children of Abraham after the flesh, and the new covenant is made with his spiritual children. In the Sinaitic, the law was written on stone tablets; in the New, it is written on the heart (2 Corinthians 3:3; Hebrews 8:9-10 etc.).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is a quotation from Thomas Scott which sets out the place of the Sinaitic covenant and its dealings both with the nation of Israel and with individual Israelites:

"The national covenant with Israel was here (Ex. 19:5) meant; the charter upon which they were incorporated, as a people, under the government of Jehovah. It was an engagement of God, to give Israel possession of Canaan, and to protect them in it: to render the land fruitful, and the nation victorious and prosperous, and to perpetuate His oracles and ordinances among them; so long as they did not, as a people, reject His authority, apostatize to idolatry, and tolerate open wickedness. These things constitute a forfeiture of the covenant; as their national rejection of Christ did afterwards. True believers among them were personally dealt with according to the Covenant of Grace, even as true Christians now are; and unbelievers were under the Covenant of Works, and liable to condemnation by it, as at present: yet, the national covenant was not strictly either the one or the other, but had something in it of the nature of each.

"The national covenant did not refer to the final salvation of individuals: nor was it broken by the disobedience, or even idolatry, of any number of them, provided this was not sanctioned or tolerated by public authority. It was indeed a type of the covenant made with true believers in Christ Jesus, as were all the transactions with Israel; but, like other types, it ‘had not the very image,’ but only ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ When, therefore, as a nation, they had broken this covenant, the Lord declared that He would make ‘a new covenant with Israel, putting His law,’ not only in their hands, but ‘in their inward parts’; and ‘writing it,’ not upon tables of stone, ‘but in their hearts; forgiving their iniquity and remembering their sin no more’ (Jer. 31:32-34; Heb. 8:7-12; 10:16, 17). The Israelites were under a dispensation of mercy, and had outward privileges and great advantages in various ways for salvation: yet, like professing Christians, the most of them rested in these, and looked no further. The outward covenant was made with the Nation, entitling them to outward advantages, upon the condition of outward national obedience; and the covenant of Grace was ratified personally with true believers, and sealed and secured spiritual blessings to them, by producing a holy disposition of heart, and spiritual obedience to the Divine law. In case Israel kept the covenant, the Lord promised that they should be to Him ‘a peculiar treasure.’ ‘All the earth’ (Ex. 19:5) being the Lord’s, He might have chosen any other people instead of Israel: and this implied that, as His choice of them was gratuitous, so if they rejected His covenant, He would reject them, and communicate their privileges to others; as indeed He hath done, since the introduction of the Christian dispensation" (Thomas Scott. Quoted by A.W. Pink).

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is a helpful article;
http://confessingbaptist.com/the-republication-debate-gets-muddy-brandon-adams/

 

[Iconoclast]

When Keach writes this, I am not sure I need to understand anymore on this topic.

Keach then argued that the covenant of grace is well-ordered for the good of the elect. It is the ground and cause of their reconciliation , quickening, justification, adoption, sanctification and salvation from hell. It is a dependable covenant, sure, and certain in every respect. Christ fulfills all of its terms. The covenant was formed in the eternal and immutable decree of God and it is therefore sure. It is a sworn oath and promise for the elect. It was confirmed by Christ’s blood and executed by the Holy Spirit. This covenant was witnessed by mighty miracles and attested by the Apostles. Therefore, the elect may trust that this is a sure covenant for their good.24

Finally, Keach turned to apply his two sermons. His application included both “reprehension” and “exhortation.” Keach began by reproving licentious living. It took the death of Christ to redeem men from their sin, which shows sin’s seriousness. Far from promoting Antinomianism, the covenant of grace, rightly understood, leads men to understand the great wickedness of sin and causes them to hate it and turn from it. Keach also reproved those who mixed their own holiness with Christ’s righteousness, since nothing short of Christ’s perfect righteousness can merit any justification for sinful men. He further rebuked the Neonomians and Arminians who speak of the covenant of grace as though it is a covenant of works because that belittles the work of Christ and fails to recognize the full extent of what he accomplished. Keach also admonished everyone who tries to reform his life through moral efforts and legal strivings, since that can never bring salvation. Only those who look to and rest in Christ and his righteousness may have peace with God and properly grounded relief for their troubled consciences.25

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Keach link is excellent. I'm really delighted that the 17th Century Baptists are being reprinted. I consider them just as good as any of the Puritans. Keach is correct that there is only one covenant of grace. Finding a covenant of redemption as well just muddies the waters.

For those who say that these covenants are not Biblical, references to the Covenant of Grace can be found in various parts of the Bible if one is prepared to look for them as the following examples will show:-

Luke 22:22. “And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined……” Determined where and by whom if not in the Covenant of Grace?

John 6:38-39. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” Christ has been given a people and a task by the Father which He is determined to fulfil. What can this refer to if not the Covenant of Grace?

John 10:16. “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” Not, “I will bring,” but, “I must bring.” Our Lord had been given a commission to fulfil.

John 10:17-18. “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” Where did Christ receive this command, the doing of which merited so well the Father’s love? In the Covenant of Grace, of course.

Phil 2:6-8. ‘Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be held onto, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.’ In the Covenant of Grace, our Lord gave up temporarily that equality with the Father that had existed from all eternity, and became the willing servant of Exodus 21:5-6 and Psalm 40:6-8 in order to rescue those who had been given to Him (John 17:2, 6 ).

Heb 2:13. ‘Here am I and the children whom God has given to Me.’ Given by the Father to the Son in the Covenant of Grace to be redeemed from sin and brought to heaven.

In Isaiah 42:6, Christ is described as the Covenant itself. He is, in His own Person and work, the very substance of it. In Mal 3:1, He is, ‘The Messenger of the Covenant’ because He came to proclaim it and make it known. In Heb 7:22, He is, ‘The Surety of a better covenant.’ Christ came as the representative of fallen Man, being engaged to fulfil the obligations incurred under the Covenant of Works. In Heb 9:15, He is, ‘The Mediator of the New Covenant’ since He has brought about legal satisfaction between God and man so that covenantal blessings are now imparted to those who had previously forfeited them, and He now stands between the two parties, advocating the cause of man to God (1John 2:1 ) and speaking a word of the comfort of God to the weary man (Isaiah 50:4 ).
[Taken from my blog article: https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/the-covenants-part-ii-the-covenant-of-grace/ ]

 

[percho]

Would it be correct to say that the covenant of God is made with the Christ; The old with Christ who came in the figure of the first man Adam, corruptible and temporal, born under the law and the new being with the resurrected Christ, incorruptible, spiritual and eternal and the two are the covenant of redemption unto grace, made before the foundation of the world.