Covenant/ Justification

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.

 

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.

 

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/

 

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.).

 

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).

 

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/ ]

 

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.