Election and the covenant

Some more interesting passages on how the OT relates to the New Testamanet and the Covenant of Grace...

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. (1Pe 1:10-12)

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Eph 2:11-13)

 

Thank you. And praise God that His Scripture is so awesome that with the Holy Spirit we can learn so much of Him and draw so close to Him by His grace!

 

A unilateral covenant because God swore by Himself, but still a covenant (Heb 6:13; Gen. 22:15-18).

 

RB -- the land is included first, the heavenly Jerusalem is later (MK vs. eternal kingdom of God). Look at Rev 20-22. Abraham will be resurrected to receive the land promised -- then he and all MK believers will see NJ (KoG) coming out of heaven down to them. Land and NJ are 2 separate events.

Yes, but we see only a partial fulfillment today. After all, He has NOT made that new covenant with Israel and Judah yet. We are NOT Israel and Judah.

So here's the plan: God makes the new covenant with the Gentiles and some Jews (since the Israel rejected Messiah). Then He takes us out so He can make the new covenant with Israel. Then, in yet another time (Rev 21), He brings NJ down to earth for Israel to enjoy!

[/quote]Abraham wasn't looking for a tract of land in Cannan. He was looking for a heavenly country:[/quote] It's BOTH. Stephen said that Abraham NEVER owned so much as a foot of the land he was promised (Acts somewhere). So FIRST Abraham must receive the land -- then, and ultimately yes, he looks for the eternal city of God, Jerusalem from heaven.

skypair

 

Larry -- they were JUSTIED in God which we ALL must be before we can be SANCTIFIED in Christ.

Here's the point -- 1) there is no "covenant of grace." It is a "made for TV/Reformers" covenant. It is God who "justifies the ungodly." 2) The OT saints come through Christ by way of the MK of Christ/Messiah. That is where they fulfill the "no man comes to the Father but by Me." They are resurrected postrib, judged (Rev 20:4) and live resurrected lives (as we believers do today) being sanctified by the Holy Spirit through Christ.

skypair

 

Listen to what Larry says. This is all good stuff!

skypair

 

No, I don’t see salvation in Scripture as a covenant in the way that Scripture uses the term covenant.

Notice that this is a word to the nation of Israel, not to Gentiles. This is a dispensational passage that does not fit into covenantalism without serious damage to the integrity of the passage.

Yes. That is not at issue here. Part of the blessing of the AC was salvation. But that was not all the AC and that is where you guys err, I believe. The AC also include land and seed and blessing that was more than salvation. It was being a leader among the nations; it was being the conduit through whom the nations would come to God; it was having good crops and great riches. You ignore that part of it for some reason.

Yes. That doesn’t annul them or change them.

Yes, what promise? The Spirit. Not the promises of the AC.

No it’s not. Part of the AC includes salvation, but the AC is fulfilled by God restoring Israel to the land in peace and making them prosperous and a leader of all nations.

Again, this is simply Scripture. I think you are ignoring an awful lot of it. There are some passages that you ahve to make stand on their head. I don't think we should do that.

 

In context, Paul is arguing for one aspect of hte covenant. Remember, this very same passage says that the covenant is not annulled. Therefore, the land, seed, and blessing are still in effect. The seed with respect to Paul's point of salvation is Christ; but the OT passsages make clear that the seed was a nation. You can't just ignore the passages that don't fit. And you can't accuse Paul of changing the Scripture. I don't beleive he did that.

yes, I agree. Part of it; but what about the rest of it? That is why the Bible is dispensational. We agree on the part you mention here; but the Bible teaches much more. It is not just about redemptive history.

 

Guys, I think I will bow out here. I have been down this road too many times to think there will be any agreement. Our difference is largely in our hermeneutic -- how we handle the text -- what we are willing to do with the words. Since we differ about that, we will differ about our conclusions.

 

Abraham wasn't looking for a tract of land in Cannan. He was looking for a heavenly country:[/quote] It's BOTH. Stephen said that Abraham NEVER owned so much as a foot of the land he was promised (Acts somewhere). So FIRST Abraham must receive the land -- then, and ultimately yes, he looks for the eternal city of God, Jerusalem from heaven.

skypair[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your reply skypair. Where I was quoted on Hebrews, my point was that the Hebrews author takes the Scripture in Jer. 31 and applies to the New Covenant in Christ with His Church. That is what the text is teaching us. It, of course, doesn't fit with a dispensational view of Scripture. I was taught this dispensational view because for most of my Christian life (13 years now) I was in churches that were predominately "arminian" in their theology and dispensational. Now, these things were not plainly taught, but just kind of "got taught" I never really picked up on it until I learned of how dispensationalist apply Jer. 31. I didn't believe it at first, because I knew what Hebrews taught.

When I did realize that this is what dispensationalism teaches, and that it contends for two separate people of God, the Church and Israel, I immediately rejected it as false. I learned from the epistles of Paul that Christ died to make both groups, Jew and Gentile, into one people by grafting the Gentiles in. The root supports us, not us the root. Now in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but we are all one Christ.

My understanding in these things have come from Scripture, and not from Covenant Theology. As I admitted before, I don't even understand Covenant Theology completely. I have some great books on the subject I have yet to read, and our pastor is teaching a series on it, but this is the first time I have been 'taught' Covenant Theology.

So, even if I can't put it all together yet, and my knowledge is lacking in this area, what I have learned from Scripture on this matter makes dispensationalism impossible.

 

I know I said I would bow out, but allow me to retract that briefly.

Go back and read the NC in JEr 31 and you will see that Heb 8 only invokes part of the NC, the part that was germane to his argument—namely forgivness. He does not talk about the rest because it was not his point. Too many times, the NC is considered to be Jer 31:31-34, but it isn’t. It continues to v. 40 and that is what not only permits dispensationalism, but actually demands it.

But of course you realize that Paul was writing to the church when he said both were one. He was not addressing God’s promises to Israel as a nation. That is a different issue. The OT and NT both promise a future for Israel as Israel. Those who argue that there is only “one people of God” always do so from texts that talk about the church. And for good reason. In the church, there is no more Jew or Gentile. All have equal standing. But the prophets clearly prophesy of a time when national Israel will be restored to the head of the nations, something that makes no sense in covenantalism. The “two people of God” deal with Israel as a nation and the church as a body. This is too often glossed over by well meaning but misleading teaching.

I have found that Scripture demands dispensationalism. Covenantalism requires too much damage to the integrity of how we handle texts. You would be upset, and rightly so, if someone handled your words in the same way that covenantalists handle the Word of God in many cases. I realize that is strong, and I count covenantalists as brothers, much more so than some of my dispensational brothers who deny the sovereignty of God.

But as I have said before, the hermeneutic that makes me a Calvinist also makes me a dispensationalist. I can’t be one without the other, unless I change my hermeneutic midstream.

 

I agree that one's hermeneutic affects the conclusions drawn. What was a question for me, and continues to be my study in the Scripture, is how one chooses which hermeneutic to use? What I have attemped to look for in Scripture is how Christ and the Apostles interpreted Scripture and follow them in that. One of the greatest Calvinist Dispensationalist I know is John MacArthur. Great man of God.

 

Yes, John MacArthur is Dispensational, but not be confused with the Dispensationalism of Scofield and the DTS guys. There's a difference.

 

First, as to books on CT, pick up Renald Showers "There Really Is a Difference" (between CT and Dispensationalsim). Basically, the 2 people are not strictly Jews and Gentiles but OT and NT saints. The "other fold" that Christ must "bring in."

And again, I have discussed the distinctions: 1) earthly vs heavenly inheritance, 2) justified by God vs justified through Christ, 3) law vs grace, 4) not indwelt vs indwelt, ... The differences will be erased and we will all be one people only in God's eternal New Earth. By then, they will have been resurrected and come under the new covenant in Christ just like we are today.

Only as YOU know it is there a contradiction. The new covenant comes to the Gentiles only PARTIALLY. Just like Pentecost, our hearts are not entirely of "flesh." When resurrected Israel experiences it, they will be sinless like Christ. That is, the dealing with Israel was postponed since Christ (@ 69th week of Daniel) but the new covenant was not. The "tree" you mention has unbelieving branches cut out and "wild" grafted into the stem, yes. "Natural" vs "wild" -- 2 dispensations.

Yes, one group now and one previously. Rom 11:1 -- "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid." Why do you think we see Israel returned to their land? God is going to deal with them (after we are gone in the rapture) to bring that "other fold" in also.

Well, it is easy to say "your understanding comes from scrpture." That's what you say about Calvinism as well. If either were true, I'd have to say you haven't been praying and waiting for the Spirit's answers (like thru BB) because there are things that don't just jump out at you like that.

Covenant Theology represents all of history and scripture as being covered by 2-3 covenants: 1) covenant of redemption - Father agreed in eternity past to make the Son the Head and Redeemer of the elect and the Son agrees to take the place of those whom the Father gives Him. 2) covenant of works -- between God and Adam, it made Adam head of all mankind so that he acted for them. The covenant (not found in scripture) required Adam's "implicit and perfect obedience." 3) Covenant of grace -- "that glorious agreement between offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience." According to the "elect" nature of the human party, children of the "elect" enter into the agreement by their parents and there are regenerate and unregenerate members, the regenerate of which are the only ones who enter into "the communion of life" (which sounds to me alot like "sanctification").*

This latter covenant is where you get your "one people" idea. Basically CT says that all covenants are merely modifications to the covenant of grace. Against this, though, is the scriptural model that covenants are never modified. They either stand or, in the case of "The Lie," are broken! Further, there is no such covenants named in scripture. They are men's formulations from implication and most cannot even agree when the covenant of grace was implemented or which "elect" if covers!

*Renald Showers

Impossible? Is it impossible that there is an OT and a NT? Is it impossible that Adam existed in a perfect earth and we don't? What definition have you assigned to "dispensationalsim" that these and many other differences are ignored?

No, what you are saying is that there is a continuing "vine" -- spiritual Israel -- but ignoring that religious Israel has been cut out of olive tree and religious Christianity is the Way to God now. You also ignore -- preposterously -- that the fig tree of national Israel is right under your nose being prepared for God's dealing with it separately from the true church in the near future.

skypair

 

Perhaps your right in these things. Perhaps your wrong. This is an area, as I mentioned before, that I am growing in my knowledge of. I will continue to study, but not to debate too much, as I have not solidified my position on these things. I will continue to study the NT epistles for God's interpretation of OT Scripture. What I have learned of Scripture makes the dispensational interpretation of Jer. 31 wrong. There is a spiritual meaning there that the writer of Hebrews points out.


And I don't think the Lord will be an angry with me as you seem to be characterizing my present understanding as preposterous. God knows I want to know His truth, and care little if it be dispensational, covenantal, or something else. One thing I do know, God has worked in His people and with the world by Covenant.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. Is theirs a moderate dispensationalism? Does it move in the direction of what we know as Covenant Theology?

 

The hermeneutics of Christ and the Apostles are dispensational hermeneutics. They expected an earthly kingdom. They believed in a future for Israel. The only way to avoid that is to assume it isn't true to begin with.

There are very few Scofieldian dispensationalists today, especially not Dallas. Dallas has a number of progressives. But Scofield has long since been developed and refined.

 

I don't know of "moderate" dispensationalism, but I know MacArthur refers to "pure" dispensationalism.

 

1. To say that the hermeneutics of Christ and the apostles were dispensational, I take it to mean your brand of dispensationalism, which is rather a bold statement to make. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

2. So if Christ expected an earthly kingdom, why wasn't it established in his time?

3. So not much of Scofield is left at DTS; I know that Ryrie has corrected some of the statements of Scofield.