ANE and Biblical Covenants

[winsome]

GRACE

Those who state (and there are plenty of them in Reformed Theology) that the Old Covenant was law and no grace, don't know what they are talking about. The very instituting of the Levicital Priesthood, the Tabernacle, the utensils for "processing" of the rules and laws for atonement for sin, is God's grace in action. My simplified definition of grace is this: God's love in action toward mankind. In this, the institution for atonement, we see God's grace and love in action.

The point I have highlighted above is: Grace is simply God's love in action.

Your example of grace is God acting graciously but I understand grace to be much more than an external action of God, an act of kindness or favour.

Sanctifying grace is a gift from God that changes us internally and makes us holy. More specifically it transforms our souls giving us supernatural life. Without the supernatural life of sanctifying grace we cannot have eternal life.

"Grace is the supernatural gift that God, of his free benevolence, bestows on rational creatures for their eternal salvation. The gifts of grace are essentially supernatural. They surpass the being, powers, and claims of created nature, namely sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and actual grace. They are the indispensable means necessary to reach the beatific vision. In a secondary sense, grace also includes such blessings as the miraculous gifts of prophecy or healing, or the preternatural gifts of freedom from concupiscence.

The essence of grace, properly so called, is its gratuity, since no creature has a right to the beatific vision, and its finality or purpose is to lead one to eternal life." (catholicculture.org)

Therefore eternal life depends on us retaining sanctifying grace in our souls. If at judgement we have no supernatural life (sanctifying grace) in us then we have chosen a life without God.

The requirements of grace are those that we have to fulfil to remain in grace and for grace to be increased in us.

Breaking the commandments of Christ, the requirements of grace, means we lose sanctifying grace, partially or totally. If we turn back to God in repentance and seek forgiveness then God will restore sanctifying grace in our souls, just as the father in the Prodigal Son parable was restored to sonship with the finest robe and a ring put on his finger.


And Finally
 

The covenant law (obligations) of the New Covenant are:

1. Believe in Christ (don't really think I need to provide any passages for that one).

2. Love your neighbor as yourself (the golden rule) (I John 3:23-24).

3. Receive Communion at least once a year (John 6:53, 56 - I Corinthians 10:16).

This understanding affects the way we interpret the NT Scriptures. For example, eternal life is a gift and promise of the New Covenant, which is Christ (the Living New Covenant - Isaiah 42:6, 49:8), therefore all of the passages dealing with eternal life, or any other gift or promise of the covenant, must meet covenant principles, especially #4, then these promises and gifts apply ONLY to those abiding within the covenant. What this means, is that if Paul believes in Christ, but is not abiding in the covenant because he is not meeting his covenant obligation of loving on people when he sees the opportunity and has the means to do so, but just walks on by and does nothing, then he does not have eternal life, regardless of what he thinks or believes.

The issue here is: That only those abiding in the New Covenant can have eternal life.

I take Eternal Life to mean Heaven, everlasting life in the presence of God.

The atonement allowed God to apply grace to all, from the beginning of time. The righteous men of old have eternal life not because they were righteous under the law but because the Atonement allows God to apply grace to them. None of them entered heaven until Christ's death and Resurrection. In Hebrews the writer lists great men of old and then says that although they died in faith they could not then receive what was promised (Heb 11:13-16 & 39).

Another thing that shows that one does not have to be in the New Covenant to have eternal life is that not only will righteous men of old, who themselves were not in the New Covenant, receive eternal life but so will others, alive since Christ's death, and not in the New Covenant, gain eternal life. God wants everyone to be saved (1Tim 2:3)

Paul says in Acts:
"And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him." (Acts 17:26-27)

Paul is saying that there is a possibility for all people in all time and anywhere to seek and find God because God has made it possible for them to do so.

But those that are saved and given eternal life, will be saved and given eternal life though grace bought by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.



Sorry there is such a lot at once.

God bless

[SwordMaster]

Winsome says:

Quote
Prior to Catholica's comment (in another thread) it was my understanding that the covenant was between the Father and Son. As far as I am aware this is not official Catholic teaching as the Church does not seem to have made any pronouncement on the matter. Actually it says little about covenant as such. Catholica's comments seems to make sense but I am veering back to the Father-Son .

You say "The idea that God made the New Covenant with God the Son is COMPLETELY foreign to the Scriptures. It originated out of Covenant Theology, which is a branch of Reformed Theology.

Actually I believe that there is scriptural support for this – though not for the rest of the Reformed Theology ideas of covenant of grace etc.

1. Paul compares Jesus to Adam. Adam was the representative of all mankind and failed. Jesus is the new Adam, the representative of all mankind, and did not fail. If the Adamic covenant was between God and first Adam, why should the New Covenant not be between God and the last Adam.

Above, you seem to be basing your stand on this topic, not on empirical evidence, but upon "why should..." That puts your stand here on flimsy ground. As you said earlier, it is a "why not" question (but still the same as "what if" in practicality). "Why not" or "why should" is an argument based more in philosophy than on empirical evidence.

Paul calls Adam a type of the one who is to come (Rom 5:14).
In 1Cor 15:22 & 45-49 Paul; makes several comparisons between Adam and Christ.
In 1Cor 15:21 he says: "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead." To me that says Adam was a representative of mankind and tested as such – and he failed. Jesus, the anti-type of Adam represented mankind and did not fail.

I would ask this question: "What did Adam fail at?" God placed the tree in the garden specifically so that Adam would have opportunity to sin, in order to fulfill God's greater plan and purpose for His creation. In this respect, Adam did not fail, he did exactly what God knew he would do...exactly what God ultimately intended him to do.

Adam was the original head of humanity. When Adam fell humanity fell with him. To restore what was originally intended mankind needed a new head with a new body. Jesus becomes the new head and the church the new body. This is known as recapitulation.

Two things here: first, it is true that Adam was the original head of humanity...in fact, he is STILL the original head of humanity. Christ is not the new head of humanity, He is the head of God's people in the world today.

Second, Adam fulfilled God's originally intended plan for mankind. If there never was a fall, then mankind could not learn to love and trust in God. If mankind remained in his original state of innocence in which he was created, the only relationship God could have had with him would have been most shallow and basic – not really what God desired out of humanity. God intended the fall...that does not mean that He made Adam fall, but He created the environment that was conducive to him eventually falling.

Still, what you have provided so far as evidence for your take that God the Father covenanted with God the Son, falls into categorical conjecture. So far, you have not provided hard empirical evidence.

2. Regarding Jeremiah 31:31-34, 

I contend that Jesus identified with Israel as a whole and is thus "the house of Israel and the house of Judah".

In Ex 4:22-23 God tells Moses to say to Pharoah "Thus says the Lord, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me"; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son." Israel is God's son.

Hos 11:1 picks this up "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

This is picked up by Matthew who recalls this as a prophecy of Jesus' flight into Egypt "This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Mt 2:15) so Jesus stands for the whole of Israel.

While I can see where you are coming from, this is still nothing more than conjecture. Take, for example, my stand that God tells us that the Messiah would be this living New Covenant...I am not taking two incidents that appear related and coming to a conjectural conclusion, there are two passages that come right out and state that "I will give you to/for the people as a covenant." Sure, there aren't any passages that come right out and state that in the New Covenant Jesus identifies (and thus takes the place of, as you seem to be suggesting) as Israel, but neither is there enough Scriptural support, in my mind, in coming to the conclusion that you do, especially since this appears to be a one time thing. It is still conjectural with no real empirical evidence behind it. I do not see your conclusion (except for within your "why not" thesis) that "Jesus stands for the whole of Israel" as regarding the New Covenant.

I don't think it is flimsy. God's promises come to fruition in Jesus. There are other times when a person stands who a whole group – Jacob for example.

Yes, God's promises come through Christ, but that in no way, shape, or form insinuates that He is the second partner in the New Covenant. In fact, the promises come through Christ because He is the Living New Covenant, wherein the promises are made out of in the first place.

It is also true that many times in Scripture one person stands (in certain passages) for the whole of a group – however, those instances are made CLEAR when they are made. There is no clearly stated antecedent demonstrating in either the Old or New Covenants that Christ covenanted with God. This is another conjecture with no hard evidence, not even circumstantial evidence (as yet).

Moreover in previous covenants with Noah and Abraham the covenants were made with specific people – and their descendants. With Sinai it was made with a specific group of people and their descendants (implied in Ex 20:6). IN all of those three God says "to you".

True on all accounts. However, with Noah and Abraham there were no mediator – God made the covenantal promise to Noah and all living things, not just his descendants. With Abraham God did make the covenant to him, NOT with his descendants, that covenant would come later, and when that covenant did come it came by way of a mediator. None of your three examples above help your case any that I see.

But in the New Covenant Jesus does not address anyone. He states that the New Covenant exists ""This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." (Lk 22:20) and then a few verse later (as I explained earlier) he then addresses the apostles, covenanting a kingdom to them.

Yes, but you are adding 2+2 and coming up with 5. Jesus does not address the covenant to anyone because that was already done by God through the prophets...

Isaiah 55:3
Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David.

Isaiah 61:8
For I the LORD love justice; I hate robbery and wrong; I will faithfully give them their recompense, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

Jeremiah 32:40
I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.

Ezekiel 16:62
I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall know that I am the LORD,

Ezekiel 37:26
I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore.

Ezekiel 20:37
I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant.

Perhaps the most telling of these above is the last, for here God speaks of the "bond of the covenant" and passing them "under the rod" for cleansing. In every case shown, God speaks of making the new covenant with "them" or with "you," all speaking of individuals. I left out the passages where God speaks concerning the bringing in of the Gentiles into the covenant. God promised to make a new covenant specifically, but not exclusively, with Israel, and now the Gentiles are part of the new covenant.

This last aspect also dejects the idea that Jesus assumes the identity of Israel, unless you mean spiritual Israel, whom the Church is today...and I don't see that in Scripture either.

The empirical evidence shows that God is the covenantor and that "whosoever will" is the covenantee; again, the idea that God the Father made the new covenant with God the Son still proves foreign to the Scriptures.

Another interesting point. Heb 9:15 refers to a covenant, but then moves into a will or testament in vs 16-17. My NAB has this footnote for vs 16-17:
"A will...death of a testator: the same Greek word diatheke, meaning "covenant" in vs 15 and vs 18 here is used with the meaning will. The new covenant, unlike the old, is at the same tima a will that requires the death of the testator. Jesus as eternal Son is the one who establishes the new covenant together with his Father, author of both covenants; at the same time he is the testator whose death puts his will into effect."

Yes, this has caused problems from day one. When you look at the etymology of the situation, the Greeks had no such word for covenant, as ANE covenants did not exist in Greek history or culture. Therefore, rather than making a new word up in order to describe the foreign idea of covenanting, or even absorbing brit into the Greek language for covenant, the translators of the Septuagint chose to use their term for will, even though the two concepts are totally opposite one another.

The problem here is that a covenant does not require the death of a testator, and in fact, this translation issue is out of place in the English. When we go to the original Greek for translation we come away from this passage with a better thought-for-thought translation that squares with the concept of covenant...

Hebrews 9:16-17
Because where a covenant is broken, the covenant necessitates the death of the covenant-breaker, a covenant is not in effect until the death of the sacrifice, because it cannot be in power when the necessity of life has not been disposed.

The New Covenant is not a will, nor was there a will put into effect by His death. If the translators of the Scriptures understood ANE covenants, they would most likely not translate these passages as they have in the past. The New Covenant is not, at the same time, a will – and there is no Scriptural evidence to support that theme.

At the time of Jeremiah the old Israel had been split into Judah & Israel, so "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" refers to the whole of the old Israel. Jesus as Israel creates a new Israel with the twelve apostles, symbolising the twelve tribes.

One of the problems here, again, is that it is wholly conjectural that Jesus stands as Israel in the New Covenant. The other problem is that, while Jesus does create a new Israel in Himself, the twelve apostles do not symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel, and this view does no justice to the "tribe" of the Gentiles that are now part of the new Israel. For He has made the two into one.

As the personification of Israel he fulfils the prophecy of Jeremiah.

Which prophecy? Do you mean Jeremiah 31:31-34? 

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31   "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
32   not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
33   For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34   And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

I do not see how you observe that Christ fulfills this prophecy, even if He was standing in the covenant as Israel (which still stands wholly as conjecture at this point). How did God put His law into Christ if He fulfills this prophecy? God is already Christ's God, how does He fulfill this aspect? If Christ is the "my people" they shall "all know me," how does this fit with Christ being "them?" I still fail to see how you come to this conclusion.

How can Christ be both priest and victim? But he is.

Actually, He is not a "victim," He is the sacrificial lamb of God, fulfilling two distinct roles within the plan of redemption. But, still, I see no solid empirical evidence that Christ is both the mediator of the covenant and the second participant in the covenant, that is contradictory and now where in either the OT or the NT is this even eluded to.

To mediate is both an intransitive and a transitive verb. A definition of mediate in the transitive sense is: to serve as a medium for causing (a result) or transferring (objects , information, etc.). As mediator Christ is the one who is the meritorious cause of our justification and reconciliation with the Father.

I am not picking up on what your point is here...Christ is the mediator between God and man, we both agree here, don't we?

I Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

When we take this passage at face value, there are no appearances of special dictums or circumstances that need to be explained; there is one God and one mediator between God and men, whom the covenant is given to. Again, there is no indication that I can detect, not even a hint or suggestion, that the New Covenant is between God the Father and God the Son. All of the language in the passages that can be said to deal with who the covenant partners are, clearly indicate that it is God and man, with Christ as the mediator.

The explanation given before that Noah, Abraham, and David were mediators in a sense between God and their descendants doesn't hold water in my opinion for two reasons at least. (1) Because there is no articulation anywhere in the Scriptures that even come close to trying to indicate that these three men were mediators in any sense of the word. (2) The Old Covenant included Israel of that day and their descendants, yet we have Moses as clear mediatory representative...why have a clear mediator in one case dealing with ancestors and three that do not follow that pattern?

We come into the covenant at baptism. In the earlier covenants the participants come into the covenant by birth. So too with this covenant, but whereas the others were a natural birth with the New Covenant it is spiritual birth – "born again, with a spiritual circumcision".

I can agree with this, I would address a few points but they are more "in the details" of the wording, so I won't bother.

"He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him" (Col 1:18-22)

We come into the covenant when we become part of his body, the Church, through baptism.

This is another one of those "hair splitting" things...it actually goes the opposite direction. We become part of His body, the Church, and members of the Kingdom of God, when we enter into the covenant. The Church is a covenant organism, and the Kingdom of God is a covenant kingdom. Just saying!!!

The way I see it is that Christ can reconcile man to God because he is man (& God of course). It's the recapitulation that I referred to above. As the representative of all mankind, by his selfless sacrifice he enables God (the Father) to move from Law to Grace. As such the atonement is available to all, though there are conditions for it to be applied to us.

Yes, He became flesh so that He could personally experience and understand our weaknesses, and that reconciliation comes through the propitiation in His blood...

Hebrews 2:17
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

However, I fail to see where you are coming up with this idea that Christ is the representative of first Israel, and now all of mankind...please explain this, because I am missing it somewhere. Yes, Adam was a "type" of He who was to come, but in what sense? Where are we told of the exact typology between Adam and Christ, like we are in other Biblical typologies? The only clearly instigated typology that I can find is here...

Romans 5:15-19
15   But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
16   And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
17   For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18   Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
19   For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

It is a typology of opposites – Adam brought death, Christ brought life. No where here do I see anything that brings to mind that Christ is the representative of mankind.

I believe there is only one King and there is only one Kingdom. Jesus reigns now from heaven and part of his kingdom is on earth. When we die, if we are in his kingdom we remain in his kingdom, but in heaven. We don't translate into a different kingdom.

Jesus says in Mark "the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mk1:15), whereas in Matthew he says the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Mt 4;17). Jesus is not referring to different kingdoms. It's just that Matthew, as a Jew, prefers not to use the name of God so he uses heaven instead.

I can see how this can be confusing, for many believe the same. Although I don't think it is anything to argue about, I will give my two cents worth! When we examine all of the passages of Scripture dealing with the kingdom of God, we see that most of them elude to the kingdom of God as a temporary kingdom here on earth consisting of believers in covenant with Him. The kingdom of heaven (outside of Matthew – because what you state above concerning Matthew is correct) explicitly speaks of God's kingdom in eternity. So...in one sense you are correct, there is one kingdom in two different planes of reality (the natural and the supernatural), but the part of the kingdom in the natural world is actually part of the supernatural kingdom that we will not partake of until after we enter into eternity.

There are only five times when Matthew uses the term "kingdom of God" instead of "kingdom of heaven," and in each of those times he specifically refers to the kingdom here on earth today consisting of believers...Matthew 6:33, 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, and 21:43.


This looks pretty long, so I will stop here and do some more in a second post.

[SwordMaster]

PART II...

Winsome said...

There is an "and". That doesn't necessarily mean the two will happen simultaneously. I believe were are in the kingdom now, and we can eat and drink at the table of the Lord just as Jesus promised the apostles.

Yes, I think we are having another one of those "agreement misunderstandings" again. I agree with you here, for whenever we partake of Communion we are partaking of the Lord's table. But what I meant earlier is that the disciples were not eating and drinking and "and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" today.

In fact, the verbs "eat" and "drink" are in the Present Active Subjunctive, meaning that these two actions may or may not be continuous or repeated action which may, or may not, be accomplished by the subject, it is possible but not a certainty. In other words, He is speaking futuristically and for that reason alone in the Greek, it is "possible but not a certainty" only because it has not yet taken place.

Just after Paul writes about participating in the body and blood of Christ he says: "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons." (1Cor 10:21). Paul was writing about now, not heaven. This is eating and drinking now at the table of the Lord.

Agreed.

I have highlighted the points in the above which may be summarised as: The New Covenant is Law based, with obligations on both God and man. Now we have arrived at my concerns, which I noted earlier, because the New Covenant is not merely new in the sense of another one but has differences in kind. The whole point of Christ's atonement is that mankind can live under Grace not Law.

How do you come to this conclusion? If by "point" you mean goal, then this is incorrect. The goal of the New Covenant is to reconcile man back to God and allow him entrance into covenant relationship with God for eternal life.

As stated before, there has always been grace working in human history; grace is manifest under the Old Covenant through the Temple (or Tabernacle) and the implementation of the Levitical priesthood and the laws of atonement. There has always been grace, and there has always been law, especially when dealing with relationship between God and mankind.

Remember "covenant law," it is basically the obligations that the two participants in the covenant must meet in order to remain abiding in the covenant. The atonement in Christ does not do away with law, which I have demonstrated before...

Hebrews 7:12
For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

The priesthood changed, and it changed with the dawning of the atonement in Christ, and with it came also the new law of the new covenant. Perhaps it would be easier to understand if instead of law we utilize the term obligations, because in effect, that is exactly what covenant law is – obligations.

I will return to this thought in a moment, but first, lets look at this supposed opposites of grace and law popularized through Reformed theology:

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Here the specific law of the Old Covenant is addressed, notice that law is not done away with by grace or truth, all we are told here is that law came through Moses and grace and truth came through Christ.

Romans 4:16
That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Law and grace are not enemies, they work hand in hand.

Romans 5:20
Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

And this is where they work hand in hand most – if not for the law, grace would not abound...among other things.

Romans 6:14
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

This passage does not mean that there is no law for us to walk in obedience to, which is clearly evidence by passages addressing the law of Christ and so forth. It means that whereas law was dominant under the Old Covenant, so now grace is dominate under the New Covenant.

Galatians 2:21
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Once again, law and grace are not opposites, they only serve different functions. Under the New Covenant righteousness does not come through the law (but neither does it come through grace, but through faith because of grace).

Galatians 5:4
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Again, justification is not the purpose of the law, therefore it can not justify...but then again, justification does not come through grace either, but through faith because of grace.

Returning to obligations – man is a sinner and God hates sin. In order for a man to come to God for fellowship and relationship, his sinful behavior must be dealt with. God will not change His righteous and holy character so that we can enter into fellowship...no, man must change his sinful behavior if he desires relationship with God, otherwise God will not allow him into His presence for fellowship because sin separates man from God...

Isaiah 59:2
but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have caused Him to hide His face from you, so that He will not listen to your voice.

Covenant law is the obligations – the foundation of relationship – that man must meet in order for God to "hang around with him." Because God never changes, even after the application of the atonement and the imputed righteousness and imputed holiness of Christ to our account, God still demands that we conform our behavior to the imputed righteousness and holiness. As I have used before as an example...I don't smoke, and I can't stand to be around cigarette smoke, or the stench it leaves behind in people's hair and clothes, etc.

Therefore, I do not hang around with people who smoke, even if they are not smoking right there in my presence. It is the same with God – He does not like sin, He hates sin, and if we want to hang around with Him we need to change our behavior, and that behavior is covenant law. As long as there is the possibility of relationship between man and God, there will always be covenant law (or some other kind of obligatory behavior modification on our part).

At the very beginning Adam (and Eve) sinned and brought judgement and condemnation on themselves and all their descendants. They lost the supernatural grace (sanctifying grace) necessary for eternal life.
"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom 5:12)

Actually, you will find no Scripture that states Adam and Eve were under the kind of grace called "saving grace." Grace was provided to them in the form of the slaughtered animals on their behalf that God made their coverings for, but this was a prophetic act in word pictures. If there had been grace made available to them under that first covenant, then they would not have fallen without some kind of atoning put to work on their behalf.

There is no way that man can ever gain eternal life under a system of law because man can never perfectly keep the law. The only way we can obtain eternal life is through the gracious gift of God.

Two points here, just for clarification – man can keep the law of the Old Covenant perfectly, just as God told us one could (Deut. 30:11-14) and gave us the examples of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-6) and in Paul (Philippians 3:4-6). However, man cannot keep the law of the New Covenant perfectly.

Second – one can never gain eternal life under a system of pure law because eternal life is not the purpose of law. The purpose of law has always been obligations one must meet in order to remain abiding in covenant relationship with God – that is all.

That is why we cannot gain eternal life under the New Covenant if it is a covenant of law.  We can never legally obtain eternal life if we have to keep covenant laws.

Two things here: first, the New Covenant is a covenant of law (and grace)...

Jeremiah 31:33
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The new covenant was prophesied by God to be a covenant of law, for relationship, just as I explained the reason above. And again...

Hebrews 7:12
For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

The law changed under the New Covenant, but there is still law. Under the New Covenant it is not the law of Moses, but the law of Christ I Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2), also called the law of God (Rom. 7:25; 8:7), the law of the Spirit (Rom. 8:2), the royal law (James 2:8), and the perfect law and the law of liberty (James 1:25). The New Covenant has covenant law, it has obligations that one must meet, but not in order to gain eternal life, but in order to remain abiding in the covenant relationship with God.


That is why I think your statement "one must abide in the covenant ("in Christ") in order to legally possess what the covenant offers" (my emboldening) is incorrect.

Several things...first, the New Covenant is a covenant of law, so my statement is not incorrect. Second, this is not only covenant principle, but it is demonstrated in the Scriptures...

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.

All of the promises found within the New Covenant are found "in Christ" because He is the living covenant. If one does not abide in the covenant then none of the promises (including the promise of eternal life "in Christ") is his. If one is in the covenant then he is in the Kingdom of God...

Matthew 6:33
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

What things? The basic necessities of life, which are promises of the new covenant. There are more, but I will refrain for consideration of length and move on to point 3...
You base your holding of my statement in error upon your thinking that the new covenant does not have law, this is error.

Covenants are first and foremost legal instruments. That means if you are not abiding by the covenant obligations, then legally you do not have what the covenant offers, just as I stated.

Eternal life can only be received as a gift from God. But God has a problem in that we are all legally under judgement and condemnation. God's justice and holiness means that he cannot just ignore that.

Correct, and what I am saying does not contradict that at all. As with Redbaker, I suspect (I hope), I am confusing you with the details...I am a person of details – I not only want to know the truth of the subject, I want to know how it works. Often times when someone believes in false doctrine, showing them the details of the subject matter at hand demonstrates where they have been taught wrong in the past, because if the details don't work, then neither does his/her doctrine. What I am giving you is the details...for example:

Eternal life is a free gift of God found only in Christ. We both agree on this. What I am showing in the details is this...

1.  Eternal life is a free gift of God, because of grace, through faith, in Christ.
2.  In order for one to gain eternal life he must be abiding in the legality of the new covenant relationship with God, for only then can he approach God and engage Him in an intimate, personal love relationship, wherein eternal life is given.
3.  In order to enter into that covenant which leads one to eternal life, he must have faith, repent, and receive baptism into Christ (the living new covenant).
4.  Once in that legal covenant relationship, he must meet his covenant obligations (law) in order to remain in that covenant relationship.

Now, one does not meet his covenant obligations in order to gain eternal life, but in order to remain abiding in covenant relationship with God. Eternal life is still free, it is still a gift, it is still in Christ, and when we understand covenant law then the passages in the new covenant which address obedience to God make sense (Mat. 7:21-23; Heb. 5:9; John 3:36; etc.). When we harmonize the Scriptures together, we discover that they move in a cohesive unity just as "predicted" by ANE covenant principles. That goes against the current slant on the Scriptures by Reformed Theology...but that is their problem, not mine.

God's answer to this was the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This allows God to apply mercy; to relate to us as a loving and merciful Father who will forgive his wayward sons and daughters (up to a point) and not as a Just Judge who condemns us.

Agreed...without the atonement in Christ we would still be having to go out and buy an animal to sacrifice at the local temple every time we sinned.

Entering into the New Covenant puts us in a grace based system not a law based one.

Again, the New Covenant is law-based, it has covenant law – and again, law and grace are not an antithesis to one another, the work hand in hand with one another and compliment one another. The purpose of both law and grace is to bring you and I into covenant relationship with God.

"The old covenant is conditional; because it is founded on the observance of the law, and is thus essentially bound to man's conduct, it can be and has been broken. Because its basic content is the law, it relies on the formula: "if you do this...." This "if" connects the mutable human will with the essence of the covenant itself, thus making it a provisional covenant. In contrast, the covenant sealed at the Last Supper appears as fundamentally new in the sense of a prophetic promise. It is not a conditional contract, but a gift of friendship, irrevocably conferred. Law is replaced by grace."
(Cardinal Joseph Ratziger, later Pope Benedict XVI, The new covenant: A theology of covenant in the New Testament, translated by Maria Shrady).

Cardinal Ratziger is wrong, and appears to be holding to some aspects of Reformed Theology. First, the old covenant is conditional, but it was not founded upon observance of the law, it was founded upon God's covenant with Abraham, to make Abraham's descendants God's people and He their God. Second, man's conduct will always be an issue when it comes to relationship between God and man, and the imputed righteousness and holiness of Christ in the atonement does not negate man's responsibility regarding his behavior.

Third, the old covenant's basic content was not law, it was relationship – God establishing Israel as His unique people. Cardinal Ratziger does not understand covenant law, nor ANE covenants it appears. Fourth, the new covenant is not a prophetic promise...it was promised to be given, but it is not a promise. Fifth, the Scriptural FACT (verses human teaching) that the new covenant is conditional is found in that it has law, which I already demonstrated above, particularly utilizing the same passage which promise the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). When God says that the covenant will have law, that is exactly what He means. We are to take God's Word over what men teach.

If we look at the parable of the Prodigal Son we can see this. The younger son dishonoured his father first by demanding his inheritance before his father was dead, and then by squandering it all on women and debauched living. When he returns home to his father he is not treated under law but under grace. The father is ready to forgive and treat him as a son. It is the older brother that wants to put him under judgement and condemnation.

Ok.....that is a new twist on the Prodigal Son parable that I have never heard before, but I suppose it could be used to teach this. However, you do realize that the parable does not specifically teach what you have given? The meaning of the parable is to highlight concerning "spiritual death" and "spiritual life." The son had life as long as he was in union with the Father, when he left, he died spiritually, just as the Father said. When he came back (after coming to his senses), he became alive again, being in union with the Father. The parable does not specifically teach law and grace, but life and death.

As the quote above from Cardinal Ratzinger says: "It is not a conditional contract, but a gift of friendship, irrevocably conferred."

Only on bumper stickers have I seen that "friendship is a gift," it is not even said to be so in the Scriptures. The Scriptures state that friendship with God is NOT free in a certain sense...

John 15:14
You are my friends if you do what I command you.

James 4:4
You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

How does one make himself a friend of the world and an enemy of God? By one's behavior. Cardinal Ratzinger is in error in his belief.

I'm not denying that the New Covenant contains commandments; that obligations are placed upon us. But these are requirements of grace not law. They are obligations on us before God will act under grace, but our actions do not obligate God.

They are requirements of both grace and law. God has already acted "under grace" on our behalf, but will act no further on our behalf until we act (or unless someone is praying for Him to and it is in accordance with His will).

You are correct (which I have never stated), our actions do not obligate God – He obligated Himself to certain things. It was He who "wrote" His new covenant, not we!

One problem I see with Protestantism is that it tends to see our relationship with God in legal terms. Examples of this are the concepts of imputed righteousness and penal substitution. (Actually I think this is a problem with our western mindset, but Protestantism is particularly affected by it)

I am not sure, I have never studied up on that. However, I do know and understand that legalities are legalities, and God obligated Himself to covenant legalities for our benefit, not so that He could stand over us ready to strike us with lightening when we miss the mark.

God obligated Himself through the covenant legality so that when we are struggling in faith, we have just one more thing to hold on to – that God promised in a binding legal instrument to do certain things to and for us as His covenant people. This brings up an interesting study that I did some years ago (about 20...) on the names of God. Yahweh is the only personal proper name of God which He has revealed to us as yet, the Tetragrammaton (I'm sure you already know what that means). In English it translates to either "I am" or "He is" depending upon the tense it finds itself in. However, in Hebrew the word (or name) means much more than "I am," it carries with it the message that "I AM present to help, deliver, heal, redeem, save, and keep covenant." God's name, Yahweh, is His covenant name to His covenant people, promising to always be around to take care of them – legally! So, yes, we do deal with legalities and legal terms, but that is because God does so.

It is not a problem if one understands its purpose. For example, returning to the husband / wife example: you and your wife entered into a legal marriage covenant relationship...why? Was it not so that you two could come together and get to know each other in a more complete sense? (I was not talking about sex there, but here I am for example's sake) Not only in God's eyes, but also in the eyes of the laws of this country, you cannot legally partake of one another physically unless you have first entered into the legally recognized marriage relationship. To many people's surprise, if you check your state's penal codes, it is still against the law to have sex outside of the confines of marriage, but what police agency arrests people today on those charges!

The point I am trying to make here, is that one must enter into the legal covenant relationship with God before he can engage God in personal intimate relationship wherein dwells eternal life. The legal points are there whether one likes them or not, because God is a God of order and legalities. That does NOT mean that God is a legalist, it just means that He cares enough about His people to provide for them in legal terms so that we can have more confidence in Him, His Word, and in His promises.

If we are in the new covenant we are in a familial relationship with God. We are part of his family, his household (Eph 2:19). God relates to us as Father not magistrate. He requires faithfulness, obedience and love. There are household rules and obligations for living in the family, not law. Infractions are dealt with in house, with mercy and love. Recourse to law is an extreme act when total rupture occurs (see Deut 21:18-21), when we put ourselves outside the household.

True, so for the remainder of our discussion, I will try to remember to use the term "covenant obligations" rather than "covenant law," even though they basically mean the same thing and have the same goal.

One more thing to ponder...do you see in the NT Scriptures that one who is in legal covenant relationship with God, but does not engage God in intimate and personal relationship, wherein dwells eternal life, will enter into heaven? There are legalities, and they have their place in God's plan...

The purpose of having eternal life, is to spend time with God and get to know Him on an intimate and personal basis.

John 17:3
And this is the purpose for eternal life, to know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

It appears that those who are in covenant relationship with God, who do not follow through in that personal relationship, will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, because God will only allow those into heaven who He has come to know personally.

Matthew 7:21-13
21 Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. 22  On that day many will say to Me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many mighty works in Your name?" 23  And then will I declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness."

Matthew 25:1-12
But He answered, "Truly, I say to you, I do not know you."

Romans 1:21
For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

II Thessalonians 1:8
In flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Titus 1:16
They profess to know God, but they deny Him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

I think the problem here is our different understanding of grace. I will say more under the next point

It could be...grace can be such a confusing issue because of false Reformed teaching. It is such an issue that in my book that I am currently making ready for publication, I had to dedicate 14 pages to the subject, just in explaining the basics of what causes so much confusion.


Stay tuned for part III...

[SwordMaster]

PART III

Winsome said...

The point I have highlighted above is: Grace is simply God's love in action. Your example of grace is God acting graciously but I understand grace to be much more than an external action of God, an act of kindness or favour.

Sanctifying grace is a gift from God that changes us internally and makes us holy. More specifically it transforms our souls giving us supernatural life. Without the supernatural life of sanctifying grace we cannot have eternal life.

Yes...I have seen this also in Reformed Theology...they have like five different kinds of grace depending upon who one talks to. This is where the confusion enters the picture...there is irresistible grace, prevenient grace, common grace, sanctifying grace, preventing grace, and even convincing grace, to name a few. The problem is that charis has 16 different meaning depending upon its context, but out of 16 "grace" is used almost solely by bible translators. Then the issue multiplies because of the 10 different meanings that the word "grace" has in English.

When it all boils down to where the rubber meets the road, there is only one kind of grace, and that is the love of God. The love of God is supernatural, because it originates from a supernatural being, but when we look at it honestly, and lay any bias we may have down, there really isn't any such thing as "sanctifying grace," there is just grace, and it is because of God's love for us that He sanctifies us. No?

"Grace is the supernatural gift that God, of his free benevolence, bestows on rational creatures for their eternal salvation. The gifts of grace are essentially supernatural. They surpass the being, powers, and claims of created nature, namely sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and actual grace. They are the indispensable means necessary to reach the beatific vision. In a secondary sense, grace also includes such blessings as the miraculous gifts of prophecy or healing, or the preternatural gifts of freedom from concupiscence.

First, grace is not a gift, it is the love of God. There is no passage that states that grace is a gift. In passages like Romans 3:24, Ephesians 2:8, and Ephesians 3:7, the gift is not grace, the gift is the item which came to us because of grace.

Second, when we understand the etymology of grace in Paul's day and age, it could be free, but most often times it was not (Imagining a Secular Translation of the New Testament; Crook, Zeba; The Bible and Interpretation (March 2012), http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/cro368005.html).

Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament; DeSilva, David A.; Ashland Theological Journal, Vol. 31 (1999)

I agree mostly with the majority of the quote.

The essence of grace, properly so called, is its gratuity, since no creature has a right to the beatific vision, and its finality or purpose is to lead one to eternal  life." (catholicculture.org)

I am not sure that I understand what is being stated above, but it probably really doesn't matter.

And Finally

Quote from: SwordMaster on February 05, 2014, 07:22:07 PM
The covenant law (obligations) of the New Covenant are:

1. Believe in Christ (don't really think I need to provide any passages for that one).

2. Love your neighbor as yourself (the golden rule) (I John 3:23-24).

3. Receive Communion at least once a year (John 6:53, 56 - I Corinthians 10:16).

This understanding affects the way we interpret the NT Scriptures. For example, eternal life is a gift and promise of the New Covenant, which is Christ (the Living New Covenant - Isaiah 42:6, 49:8), therefore all of the passages dealing with eternal life, or any other gift or promise of the covenant, must meet covenant principles, especially #4, then these promises and gifts apply ONLY to those abiding within the covenant. What this means, is that if Paul believes in Christ, but is not abiding in the covenant because he is not meeting his covenant obligation of loving on people when he sees the opportunity and has the means to do so, but just walks on by and does nothing, then he does not have eternal life, regardless of what he thinks or believes.

The issue here is: That only those abiding in the New Covenant can have eternal life.

This was a blanket statement...in other words, I believe that there will be those down through history who will have never heard of Christ or the covenant, who will have eternal life because they responded to the Light which they were exposed to...which is what I believe Romans 2:13-16 addresses.

I take Eternal Life to mean Heaven, everlasting life in the presence of God.

Agreed, but it is more than that. Eternal life is God's life that He shares and imparts to those who are in intimate personal relationship with him, where they become one, just as the husband and wife become one in their intimate and personal relationship made possible legally by the marriage covenant relationship they entered into.

The atonement allowed God to apply grace to all, from the beginning of time.

I assume that you are referring to this...

Ephesians 4:8-10
8   Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men."
9   (In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?
10   He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

I agree with what you are stating, I am just trying to find Scripture that agrees or seems to insinuate the statement.

The righteous men of old have eternal life not because they were righteous under the law but because the Atonement allows God to apply grace to them.

I do not understand where you get that from. The righteous of old were righteous because the remained in covenant relationship with God and then moved forward from that legal stance into an intimate personal relationship, which is characterized most clearly in David's life. He obviously moved from the legal relationship that his peers also enjoyed, but moved into a more intimate and personal relationship with God even from an early age as a boy and continued in that relationship into adulthood.

Again, in case I have not made my position clear, no one gains eternal life through law, all the law does is keep one abiding in the legal covenant relationship with God so that they can engage God in the intimate and personal relationship wherein dwells that eternal life.

(post script...God is not interested in people who just want eternal life, that is NOT the focus of the Scriptures. The focus of the Scriptures, and the goal of all of this, is relationship with God. I believe that there will be thousands of people standing before God who only wanted eternal life, not a relationship with God, and they will find themselves in the Lake of Fire because of it.)

None of them entered heaven until Christ's death and Resurrection. In Hebrews the writer lists great men of old and then says that although they died in faith they could not then receive what was promised (Heb 11:13-16 & 39).

True...

Another thing that shows that one does not have to be in the New Covenant to have eternal life

Another thing??? What was that, I missed it. If you meant the saints of old, they met the criteria under the Old Covenant in order to have eternal life, they just had to wait until the Messiah came along and provided for their eternal atonement. The abode in the Old Covenant relationship, which allowed them to engage God in a personal and intimate love relationship, and so they had eternal life.

is that not only will righteous men of old, who themselves were not in the New Covenant, receive eternal life but so will others, alive since Christ's death, and not in the New Covenant, gain eternal life. God wants everyone to be saved (1Tim 2:3)

OK...now you are starting to get me a little nervous. Are you advocating some kind of universal salvation by that last statement? Yes, God does want everyone to be saved, but He gives man the free will to choose that eternal end for himself. God will not save everyone regardless of the way they lived their lives just because He wants them...but I really don't think that is what you meant, right?

Paul says in Acts:
"And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him." (Acts 17:26-27)

Yes, that is basically another way to say what I said earlier...that God gives all mankind differing degrees of Light of revelation of Him, and if they respond to that Light, whether it is the knowledge of the New Covenant or not, then He will judge them according to their response to that Light.

Paul is saying that there is a possibility for all people in all time and anywhere to seek and find God because God has made it possible for them to do so.

Yes, I totally agree with you. When I say that one has to be in covenant relationship with God in the New Covenant in order to have eternal life, that is a blanket statement void of all the details. God wants us to be in the New Covenant, not just because He wants us to grow in intimacy with Him, but because we do not have access to all that He has promised and prepared for us if we are not in the covenant.

That was the difference between Apollos before and after he received baptism by Priscilla and Aquila...I believe he had relationship with God, but he didn't have the indwelling of the Spirit of God, he didn't have access to the power of the Spirit in his preaching and teaching, he didn't have much except for his faith. God wants us to be in the covenant because in the covenant we become His ambassadors...ambassadors walking in the covenant blessings and promises, walking in the power of the Spirit, with the gifts of the Spirit in operation in our lives. God gives us all manner of gifts by the covenant, and when we are walking in obedience to the voice of His Spirit and walking in the supernatural, we (like the Church in Acts) will turn the world upside-down for Jesus, healing people, raising them from the dead...giving supernatural witness to a supernatural God!


But those that are saved and given eternal life, will be saved and given eternal life through grace bought by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

A blanket statement, but yes, I agree!


Have a fun and safe trip!
Blessings!

[winsome]

Hi SwordMaster,

Thanks for all the replies.

It will take me several days to reply, especially as I have a lot of other things waiting for me since i hae been away. I'll reply as soon as I can.

God bless

[SwordMaster]

Hi SwordMaster,

Thanks for all the replies.

It will take me several days to reply, especially as I have a lot of other things waiting for me since i hae been away. I'll reply as soon as I can.

God bless

No hurry...I understand what it is to have things to do!

Blessings!

[winsome]

 Hi SwordMaster,

Your last three posts raise a lot of different issues. Some I agree with but there are also many I disagree with – some of which are not significant enough to argue about.  However I think the biggest issues between us lie in the area of law and grace, and their relationship to the atonement. These are fundamental differences that divide Catholics from Protestants. I have tried to formulate some points in this regard But I've realised they are too big for me to go into. I don't think I have the knowledge (at the moment) or time so I'm going to drop out of this discussion.

I appreciate all the work you have put into this. I'm keeping a copy of this thread to review some of the points when I have more time and can do more research. It's given me a lot to think about. This is the first one­­­-on-one discussion/debate I have tried and it's been a very useful experience. But there comes a point when I have to recognise I'm out of my depth and its best to leave it.

God bless

winsome

[SwordMaster]

Winsome...thanks for participating, and I enjoyed the discussion.

Blessings!