• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Spurgeon on the Covenants

D

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Martin Marprelate said:
Lots of talk about covenants on the 'Forensic Justification of Sinners' thread.
I saw this just now on the 1689 Federalism Blog and thought it might be of interest:

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/
Click to expand...

One problem I would see in this...


For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” — Hebrews 8:10.

THE doctrine of the divine covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace is a master of divinity. I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the doctrines of Scripture are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the covenants of law and of grace. May God grant us now the power to instruct, and you the grace to receive instruction on this vital subject.

The human race in the order of history, so far as this world is concerned, first stood in subjection to God under the covenant of works. Adam was the representative man. A certain law was given him. If he kept it, he and all his posterity would be blessed as the result of obedience. If he broke it, he would incur the curse himself, and entail it on all represented by him. That covenant our first father broke. He fell; he failed to fulfil his obligations; in his fall he involved us all, for we were all in his loins, and he represented us before God. Our ruin, then, was complete before we were born; we were ruined by him who stood as our first representative. To be saved by the works of the law is impossible, far under that covenant we are already lost. If saved at all it must be all quite a different plan, not on the plan of doing and being rewarded for it, for that has been tried, and the representative man upon whom it was tried has failed for us all. We have all failed in his failure; it is hopeless, therefore, to expect to win divine favour by anything that we can do, or merit divine blessing by way of reward.

But divine mercy has interposed, and provided a plan of salvation from the fall. That plan is another covenant, a covenant made with Christ Jesus the Son of God, who is fitly called by the apostle, “the Second Adam,” because he stood again as the representative of man. Now, the second covenant, so far as Christ was concerned, was a covenant of works quite as much as the other. It was an this wise. Christ shall come into the world and perfectly obey the divine law. He shall also, inasmuch as the first Adam has broken the law, suffer the penalty of sin. If he shall do both of these, then all whom he represents shall be blessed in his blessedness, and saved because of his merit. You see, then, that until our Lord came into this world it was a covenant of works towards him. He had certain works to perform, upon condition of which certain blessings should be given to us. Our Lord has kept that covenant. His part in it has been fulfilled to the last letter. There is no commandment which he has not honoured; there is no penalty of the broken law which he has not endured. He became a servant and obedient, yea, obedient to death, even the death of the cross. He has thus done what the first Adam could not accomplish, and he has retrieved what the first Adam forfeited by his transgression. He has established the covenant, and now it ceases to be a covenant of works, for the works are all done. “Jesus did them, did them all, Long, long ago.”

And now what remaineth of the covenant? God on his part has solemnly pledged himself to give undeserved favour to as many as were represented in Christ Jesus. For as many as the Saviour died for, there is stored up a boundless mass of blessing which shall be given to them, not through their works, but as the sovereign gift of the grace of God, according to his covenant promise by which they shall be saved.

The Wondrous Covenant (Hebrews 8:10)


...is that Spurgeon is speaking about a "covenant of works" made with Adam and the Writer of Hebrews is speaking about the "First Covenant" made with Israel.


God bless.
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Darrell C said:
...is that Spurgeon is speaking about a "covenant of works" made with Adam and the Writer of Hebrews is speaking about the "First Covenant" made with Israel.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reading the link and replying to it. :)
The reason for this is that the early (17th Century) Particular Baptists saw the First/Old/Mosaic/Sinaitic covenant as being in effect a republication of the 'covenant of works.' What was conditional under the First Covenant (Exodus 19:5-6) is all of grace under the New Covenant (1 Peter 2:9-10).
The website is seeking to show that Spurgeon was of the same opinion as those early Baptists
 
D

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Martin Marprelate said:
Thanks for reading the link and replying to it. :)
The reason for this is that the early (17th Century) Particular Baptists saw the First/Old/Mosaic/Sinaitic covenant as being in effect a republication of the 'covenant of works.' What was conditional under the First Covenant (Exodus 19:5-6) is all of grace under the New Covenant (1 Peter 2:9-10).
The website is seeking to show that Spurgeon was of the same opinion as those early Baptists
Click to expand...

Not trying to be rude, but I view that as being pretty sloppy in handling the Word of God (on Spurgeon's part). The distinction of the "First Covenant," the Covenant of Law, is specific to the audience of the Writer of Hebrews, and without question it refers to the Covenant of Law, which has a place and time and a specific purpose according to the will of God. If we try to equate that with a covenant that is general and goes outside of the specifics of the Covenant of Law, we will fail to maintain the distinctions that are in place. This does damage to both an understanding of early history, but to an understanding of the Book of Hebrews as well. For example, Adam's state and the conditions imposed upon Him were for all men. But in regards to the Covenant of Law, though we have a mixed multitude present, it is still specific to Israel.

He had done better to correlate the Promises of God to Abraham, as well as Israel, where we see the foundational teachings of the New Covenant. For example, that all families of the earth would be blessed, and that God would put His Spirit within men (in that day). The Covenant of Law, in respect to the Promises of God which thread their way throughout the entirety of Scripture, stands apart in that it separates a people from the general population. I view this as a picture-prophecy of the Church and the ultimate People of God in the Eternal State.


God bless.
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Darrell C said:
Not trying to be rude, but I view that as being pretty sloppy in handling the Word of God (on Spurgeon's part). The distinction of the "First Covenant," the Covenant of Law, is specific to the audience of the Writer of Hebrews, and without question it refers to the Covenant of Law, which has a place and time and a specific purpose according to the will of God. If we try to equate that with a covenant that is general and goes outside of the specifics of the Covenant of Law, we will fail to maintain the distinctions that are in place. This does damage to both an understanding of early history, but to an understanding of the Book of Hebrews as well. For example, Adam's state and the conditions imposed upon Him were for all men. But in regards to the Covenant of Law, though we have a mixed multitude present, it is still specific to Israel.
Click to expand...
I rather think Spurgeon may have understood the point you are making. ;) But I think what Spurgeon is saying is that Israel, as God's people at that time were placed by God under what was effectively a covenant of works. 'Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law' (Deut. 27:26). It was not the CoW inasmuch as God never expected them to keep it, hence the whole sacrificial system. That is why Paul describes that covenant as a 'ministry of death' (2 Corinthians 3:7). Not because there is anything wrong with the law (Romans 7:12), but because we can't keep it (Acts 15:10). And because we can't keep it, it should drive us to Christ (Galatians 3:24).
 
D

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Martin Marprelate said:
I rather think Spurgeon may have understood the point you are making. ;) But I think what Spurgeon is saying is that Israel, as God's people at that time were placed by God under what was effectively a covenant of works. 'Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law' (Deut. 27:26). It was not the CoW inasmuch as God never expected them to keep it, hence the whole sacrificial system. That is why Paul describes that covenant as a 'ministry of death' (2 Corinthians 3:7). Not because there is anything wrong with the law (Romans 7:12), but because we can't keep it (Acts 15:10). And because we can't keep it, it should drive us to Christ (Galatians 3:24).
Click to expand...

He is still misrepresenting what the Writer of Hebrews teaches, and this is no more acceptable than a preacher I heard recently who equated a "cake" in the Old Testament to a birthday cake of today, lol.

When we teach it must be what is actually there. And in my personal opinion it is creating doctrine which does not exist in Scripture.


God bless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top