Covenant salvation

[DHK]

How would you say you are Calvinistic? and then deny covenant theology?

How do you explain the Covenants described in scripture?

Do they have anything at all to do with salvation?

Have you studied John MacArthur's view?

 

[OldRegular]

I disagree. Although I read many reformed authors I think they are wrong in their covenant theology. The best Calvinists also hold to Dispensational eschatology.

Now there is something to hang your hat on, a nail in the wall. Covenant theology is wrong but the best of the bunch are followers of Darby's pre-trib-dispensationalism.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

On the contrary, prominent Calvinistic Baptists of the past and present have held to it. Are you familiar with Benjamin Keach, Nehemiah Coxe, R.B.C. Howell, John Dagg, Ph. H. Mell and James Boyce from the past? How about Tom Schreiner, Michael Haykin, Geoff Thomas, Richard C. Barcellos, James White, the Renihans, Walter Chantry and all of the men of the Founders?

A.W. Pink should get a good mention.

Being a good Covenant Theologian Pink came out of Darby's pre-rib-dispensationalism!:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Have you studied John MacArthur's view?

I would have to take a fresh look at His current position. Perhaps I can find it in sermon form on sermonaudio? Does he put it in his study bible?
or which book would have it.
I still have great respect for him...so I would like to read or here him directly on it.
My last messages of his were from the strange fire conference, and before that on Israel.

When I was taught premill....I did not have near enough knowledge of the covenants to be more discerning so it would be interesting to read or consider this freshly as he is a very competent brother who has taught me much over time.

 

[DHK]

I would have to take a fresh look at His current position. Perhaps I can find it in sermon form on sermonaudio? Does he put it in his study bible?
or which book would have it.
I still have great respect for him...so I would like to read or here him directly on it.
My last messages of his were from the strange fire conference, and before that on Israel.

When I was taught premill....I did not have near enough knowledge of the covenants to be more discerning so it would be interesting to read or consider this freshly as he is a very competent brother who has taught me much over time.

This short exposition of Heb.8:7-13, "A New Covenant," is not by MacArthur himself, but it is on his site. I believe it is the same position that he takes. It is well explained.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/gr299.htm

 

[Yeshua1]

Now there is something to hang your hat on, a nail in the wall. Covenant theology is wrong but the best of the bunch are followers of Darby's pre-trib-dispensationalism.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

No, rather would say that it would be the view of the early Church fathers regarding a literally Millinium, and that Church was not Israel...

 

[Yeshua1]

I would have to take a fresh look at His current position. Perhaps I can find it in sermon form on sermonaudio? Does he put it in his study bible?
or which book would have it.
I still have great respect for him...so I would like to read or here him directly on it.
My last messages of his were from the strange fire conference, and before that on Israel.

When I was taught premill....I did not have near enough knowledge of the covenants to be more discerning so it would be interesting to read or consider this freshly as he is a very competent brother who has taught me much over time.

His views are pretty much same as mine, except do not hold to Lordship salvation in the sense that he does!

 

[Iconoclast]

This short exposition of Heb.8:7-13, "A New Covenant," is not by MacArthur himself, but it is on his site. I believe it is the same position that he takes. It is well explained.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/gr299.htm

Dhk,

good input...Thanks for the link...I will interact with it later on tonight

at first glance many similar ideas to the other views
:thumbsup::wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

This short exposition of Heb.8:7-13, "A New Covenant," is not by MacArthur himself, but it is on his site. I believe it is the same position that he takes. It is well explained.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/gr299.htm

Ok.lets look-

The writer contrasts the old covenant with the new covenant in verse 7. He says, 'For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.' The writer is not talking about the first covenant (the Abrahamic covenant) that God made with Israel. He is referring to the Mosaic Covenant.

When one brings up the subject of changing the Law in a conversation with a Jew, it really causes a problem. It causes a problem with many Christians as well. When you tell them that we are no longer operating under the Law, they act as if you are throwing away part of the Bible. They do not understand the point of Hebrews 8, the old covenant has been replaced by a new covenant (Jesus Christ). In fact, the old covenant itself said that there would be a new covenant.

I agree that the OT has been replaced by the new as this is without dispute.

I reserve the right to look into our relationship to Divine law however.

This topic has mnay side issues.

This is what the writer is stressing in verse 7. We examined in Chapter 7 that 'the Law made nothing perfect' (vs 19). But if we are not careful, we will take 8:7 to mean that the Law had faults. That is not true. The Law was righteous, the Law was perfect, and the Law was just.
If that were true, why did God establish a new covenant? Verse 8 says, 'For finding fault with them....' The fault was found with the people with whom the covenant was made, not with the covenant itself. Paul communicated this truth in Romans 8:3 'For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh....' The Law required us to be perfect, but we could not, through ourselves (the flesh), live in obedience to the Law.

agreed

The writer will contrast the two covenants. One will understand that the Mosaic covenant is what is called a 'conditional covenant,' whereas the New covenant is an 'unconditional covenant.' The difference is that the 'conditional' covenant depended on the faithfulness of the people, while the 'unconditional' covenant does not.

agreed.....the topic of covenants and covenant salvation is much larger than what this article deals with. That is okay because each component deserves careful study and attention:thumbsup:

No one article can deal with such a large topic...so it has to be discussed in parts.

The Mosaic covenant was in effect from Exodus 19 up to Acts 2. Exodus 19:5,6 declares, 'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.' The people responded, in verse 8, '...All that the Lord has spoken we will do...!' One can clearly see that the Mosaic covenant was instituted on the condition that the people agreed to be obedient.

agreed....the theocracy came to an end because of sin and rebellion. This paves the way for gentile inclusion in the NC. That was God's design all along.
This mystery has been revealed to the church...Eph 3:9-11

There is one new man in Christ Now. Not two different programs unfolding.

more in pt2-

 

[Iconoclast]

pt 2.................

This truth is also illustrated in Exodus 24:7-8 'Then he (Moses) took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient! So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, 'Behold, the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.'' One will note that a conditional covenant is a 'If you will...then I will,' agreement. God promises the people of Israel that He will uphold the covenant if they obey His word. But, as the Bible clearly points out, the Jews were not obedient. If they had been, Jesus would be ruling as Messiah at this very moment. Our existence as we know it can be attributed to the disobedience of Israel.

agreed

Note who the New covenant is made with; '...with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.' When these two tribes are placed together, it is referring to the entire nation of Israel -the northern kingdom (consisting of the 10 tribes of Israel), and the southern kingdom (consisting of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin).

It is important that we understand that every covenant in Scripture is made with the Jews-the Abrahamic covenant, the Palestinian covenant, the Davidic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, and the New covenant. Gentiles were considered strangers and aliens to the covenants. When we understand this truth, it makes our study of Scripture much clearer.

This is where the error of dispensationalism takes over. The whole foundational idea is mistaken because there is a disregard for the Covenant of Redemption from the get go. there were saints from Adam, to Enoch, Abel,Noah, etc saved before Israel was a nation.

That Israel as a nation was singled out by God does not mean that Gentiles were not included in the plan. Mr Rugh states that gentiles were strangers and aliens to the Covenants....for the most part was historically true, however the mystery revealed was that the gentiles would be grafted in ON EQUAL FOOTING with believing Israel..

Gentiles are NOT...a Mystery form of the Kingdom....but the plowman is overtaking the reaper, and lengthen the cords and strengthen the stakes [isa54]is happening right now.

Isaiah 54 King James Version (KJV)

54 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.

2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;

3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.

5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.6 For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.

7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.

8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.

9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.

 

[Iconoclast]

VERSE 10

Verse 10 outlines the positive provisions of this New covenant; ''For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days', says the Lord. 'I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.'' This is a tremendous change. Instead of the Law being engraved in stone, as in the Mosaic covenant, God promises Israel that He will engrave His Law upon their hearts and minds. They will belong to God. This is the same experience that you and I share when we are regenerated by the salvation provided in Jesus Christ. They are made new creatures. This is the difference between the Law and Grace. The Law demands that we follow a set of rules to be saved, and conform ourselves to the character of God. Grace says that God Himself will inscribe His character on our hearts and minds, and the Spirit will conform us to His character. The promise to the Jews is that they will experience this regeneration as an entire nation.

this whole paragraph is wrong...If time permits I will deal with this all by itself...

 

[Yeshua1]

this whole paragraph is wrong...If time permits I will deal with this all by itself...

None were ever saved by the law under even the Old Covenant, so would agree with you that Dr mac Dispy leanings are wrong on that specific issue, as he seems to be extolling the Scofield view that the Jews had to keep the law for salvation, while we are under grace now...

Hos other main point though valid, as NONE under the administration of the law could have a new nature and had the indwelling of the Holy spirit as we now do have under the new One...

 

[Iconoclast]

next.................

Verse 10 outlines the positive provisions of this New covenant; ''For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days', says the Lord. 'I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.''

Dispy teachers stress that this new covenant promise was made to national Israel as if it were for them alone. It was indeed promised to the faithful remnant that God would preserve in that nation. Why was it seemingly made to national Israel only? because they were singled out among the nations at that time....and given the scripture and the promises;

3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar

So to make this a big deal does not get it done.....the world was apart from the scripture and the promises in OT time except for some elect gentiles. they did not understand and intergrate in the verses of the gentiles flooding into the Israel of God.

This is a tremendous change. Instead of the Law being engraved in stone, as in the Mosaic covenant, God promises Israel that He will engrave His Law upon their hearts and minds. They will belong to God.

the change was from outward and external to inward. The physical promise and the inward spiritual promise mesh together and here even our dispy friend says as much as he says this-

This is the same experience that you and I share when we are regenerated by the salvation provided in Jesus Christ. They are made new creatures.

Now Mr Rugh reading his bible is forced to confess that we are the same...one new man In Christ. If he and any other premie will follow through they will see it also.

This is the difference between the Law and Grace. The Law demands that we follow a set of rules to be saved, and conform ourselves to the character of God

.

This as written is error.20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Grace says that God Himself will inscribe His character on our hearts and minds, and the Spirit will conform us to His character. The promise to the Jews is that they will experience this regeneration as an entire nation.

there has always been law and grace

 

[Iconoclast]

......................

VERSE 11

The writer illustrates the next provision in verse 11; 'And they shall not teach every one his fellow citizen, and every one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest of them.' There will be universal knowledge of God and Jesus Christ. Everyone shall know Him, and teaching will not be required. Now obviously, this part of the covenant has not been fulfilled as of today. It is my understanding that verse 10 is literal (has been fulfilled), while verse 11 is spiritual (yet to be fulfilled).

isa 54 is quoted twice in the nt as fulfilled

The argument in Hebrews 8 is that the New covenant has already come. And this is where some confusion can develop. It is a covenant made with Israel, but obviously Israel is not operating under this covenant today. This does not mean that there are no Jews being saved today, because there are. But it is clear that the entire nation of Israel has not yet been saved.

yes...he is quite confused right here.....it is now, not future.

he says it himself here;

In order to understand this subject better, we must first look at what the New Testament says about the New covenant. Luke 22:19,20 says, 'And having taken some bread, when He had given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.' And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.'' With the institution of the New covenant, what must there be? Jesus said that the New covenant was in 'My blood.' It was Christ's death that instituted the New covenant. When Christ said this to the disciples, what would they think about? Jeremiah 31, and the promise of the New covenant by God.

he repeats it again;
Another direct reference to the New covenant is in 2 Corinthians 3:56; 'Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.' The letter (the Law) brought death because it condemned man by demonstrating his unfaithfulness. But the Spirit, operating in connection with the New covenant, brings life. Paul says that he is a servant of the New covenant, proving that this covenant is already in operation.

 

[DHK]

Ok.lets look-
I agree that the OT has been replaced by the new as this is without dispute.

He never said that; never even came close. We all use the OT today.
He said: " they act (as in some Christians) as if you are throwing away part of the Bible."
The key word there is "act." The OT is never thrown away. Some people simply childishly think that way. There are 66 books in our Bible and there will always will be. None of them are "thrown away," or "replaced," as you said.

agreed....the theocracy came to an end because of sin and rebellion.

The "theocracy" came to an end with Samuel (not in Acts 2). To Samuel God said, "Let them have their way. They have not rejected you, they have rejected me." Israel wanted to be like all the other nations around them. They wanted a king. They chose Saul (after the flesh), a man head and shoulders above the rest. He was the first king.
From that time until their captivity, Israel was under a monarchy not a theocracy.

This paves the way for gentile inclusion in the NC. That was God's design all along.
This mystery has been revealed to the church...Eph 3:9-11

There is one new man in Christ Now. Not two different programs unfolding.

more in pt2-

"The covenants and promises are given to Israel. There are still unfulfilled covenants. We are simply benefactors of one of those covenants that came through Abraham, the spiritual father of us all.
The unfolding of God's plan for Israel is still unfolding. It is all there in the Word.
So in His plan for us. At this present time we all must come to Christ the same way. There is no salvation, and never will be apart from Christ.
There is coming a day when Christ will come for the nation of Israel specifically. That covenant still remains to be fulfilled. God does not lie. He will fulfill his promises to Israel.

 

[The Biblicist]

God has Not Fully Rejected the Nation of Israel​

The third major interpretation error is that Paul is teaching that God has rejected Israel as a nation forever. This position argues that God may save individual Jews until the end of the age, but He has forever cast off Israel, as an ethnic nation, from elective salvation.

However, this is the very opposite of what Paul is arguing in Romans 9-11 (Rom. 11:1-4). Paul is arguing that God’s election of national Israel to salvation is not to be interpreted by physical birth but by unconditional elective spiritual birth (Rom. 9), and not through obedience to the Law but through faith in the gospel (Rom. 10), and not now, as there is a temporary rejection of Israel now for the purpose to call out the gentile elect, but their unconditional election to salvation individually and finally collectively as an ethnic nation will be accomplished immediately after all the Gentile elect are saved (Rom. 11:25-28) at the second advent of Christ. In the mean time, between the time of Paul until the time that the Gentile elect are brought in, there is in every generation a Jewish ethnic “remnant” of Israelites that will be saved as proof that God has not utterly forsaken His promise to ethnic Israel as a nation.

1. All agree that what has been broken off in Romans 11 is the ethnic nation of Israel. However, it is THAT which has been “broken off” that is to be “grafted” back in “again” (Rom. 11:23). The “remnant” has never been broken off. In every generation there is a “remnant” of Jews saved as evidence that God has not utterly forsaken Israel.

2. Israel has temporarily stumbled and has been temporarily rejected by God, but has not ultimately fallen from God’s elective purpose of salvation – Rom. 11:11

3. The Israel that has been rejected is the Israel that needs redemption under the new covenant – Rom. 11:25-28.

4. The Israel that is to be redeemed is now the enemy of the Gospel for the sake of gentile salvation (Rom. 11:28a). Hence, it cannot be synonymous with the gentiles being saved now. Furthermore, the Israel which is the enemy now of gentiles is the same Israel that is still the beloved of the Father according to the purpose of election to salvation – Rom. 11:28b. Therefore, it is the enemy of the gospel right now that will be “grafted back in again” in the future (Rom. 11:23).

5. Neither the church nor Gentiles are ever called “Jacob” in either the Old or New Testaments. “Jacob” is the name God calls unregenerate and rebellious ethnic Israel, but it is “Jacob” that God will save at the second coming of Christ – Rom. 11:26-27.

The Abrahamic Covenant is diverse in application. It has an eternal application to the promised singular nation from his physical loins, as well as, an eternal application to the plural nations (Gentiles) without contradiction of either and without any different kind of salvation for either.

 

[Iconoclast]

While I posted ot......I was speaking of the old covenant.

The Covenants are fulfilled in Christ.

As Jesus reigns now He is our Prophet , Priest and King.

We do not see the final fulfillment until the last day.

DHK......your theology seems to ignore the Covenant of Redemption.....why is that?

 

[DHK]

While I posted ot......I was speaking of the old covenant.

Then you are not reading carefully the article where the author indeed did say the Old Testament, and those who want to throw it away. He was speaking of the Scriptures, not the covenants.

The Covenants are fulfilled in Christ.

Again, according to the article (and the Bible) this is not correct. There are a number of unfulfilled covenants with Israel still to come.

As Jesus reigns now He is our Prophet , Priest and King.

Jesus is in heaven. He is in heaven as our Intercessor. He sits on the right hand of the throne of God interceding for the saints of God.
His reign and rule is yet to come; it will come on this very earth on which we stand and the duration of it will be one thousand years.

DHK......your theology seems to ignore the Covenant of Redemption.....why is that?

You speak in vague generalities and define covenants with your own words.
The only covenant God made with the NT believer is the one when he is redeemed when Christ comes by the power of the Holy Spirit and dwells within him. That is the only covenant we have to be concerned with.
Otherwise the covenants and promises are given to Israel, and there are many of them, aren't there?

 

[The Biblicist]

While I posted ot......I was speaking of the old covenant.

The Covenants are fulfilled in Christ.

As Jesus reigns now He is our Prophet , Priest and King.

We do not see the final fulfillment until the last day.

DHK......your theology seems to ignore the Covenant of Redemption.....why is that?

There is no salvation for anyone, including the nation of Israel OUTSIDE of Christ. Therefore, the nation of Israel at the second advent will be saved "in Christ" or according to the blood of the everlasting covenant.

However, there are covenants that do not deal with spiritual union with Christ but deal with material earthly promises (Rom. 9:1-5) and will be fulfilled by redeemed ethnic national Israel who will be "in Christ" experientially yet to come beginning with His advent when they are saved as a nation.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Jesus is the true Israel and us in Him

Jesus is KING.......right now.....a King has a Kingdom.

That the theology you follow denies His Kingly reign is reason enough to flee that teaching.

I did not misread the article as much as you would like it to be so.