Alright I posted this in the Presbie forum and no one has responded, I hope someone does here. Is the Mosaic covenant part of the covenant of grace or is it the covenant of works republished? I hope I worded that all correctly.
My biggest struggle in beginning to read something is with the distinctions that are natural to the terms "Covenant of Works" and "Covenant of Grace."
One thing I question is if the Covenants can be so separated that we can identify a Covenant of Works without grace, or a Covenant of Grace without works. I question the validity of seeing two distinct over-riding Covenants in the Bible. I think one would be preferable. I see a greater inter-relationship in the Covenants then those terms seem to allow. Where does the Covenant of Works end, and the Covenant of Grace begin? It seems all grey to me. This is not to say I do not see any difference between the concept of works and grace. Oh my, there is huge differences. But do the terms "Covenant of Works" and "Covenant of Grace" require such a separation of works and grace that they do not properly reflect the true inter-related nature of the biblical covenants? Well, as I said, I am no authority on this issue.
I found a Cite once that showed the difference between Presbyterian Covenant Theology, and Baptist Covenant Theology. Basically Presbyterians and Baptists have the same view on Covenant Theology; but with only one difference. BCT (Baptist Covenant Theology) drew a distinction between the Old and New Covenants as if they they were different; but PCT (Presbyterian Covenant Theology) didn't. PCT has the Old and the New under 'One Umbrella' of Covenant Theology. When I saw this, I couldn't help but to think that PCT was practically Dispensationalism. They have all their Dispensations under one umbrella of Dispensations as well...Alright I posted this in the Presbie forum and no one has responded, I hope someone does here. Is the Mosaic covenant part of the covenant of grace or is it the covenant of works republished? I hope I worded that all correctly.
The Mosaic Covenant is the republication of the Covenant of Works. Christ's benefits were foreshadowed, typified, and promised, but were not conveyed or transmitted, through the Covenant. It had no efficacy to impart grace.Alright I posted this in the Presbie forum and no one has responded, I hope someone does here. Is the Mosaic covenant part of the covenant of grace or is it the covenant of works republished? I hope I worded that all correctly.
I am interested in this subject, but I have not read that much (truthfully, I read nothing on this subject) and could be a little to the shallow side. I am open to correction, but please do it with respect and be gentle.
My biggest struggle in beginning to read something is with the distinctions that are natural to the terms "Covenant of Works" and "Covenant of Grace." Lets begin by looking at the Abrahamic Covenant, and then go to the Mosaic Covenant. How do we look at the Abrahamic Covenant? Is that "Old Covenant" or is that "New Covenant." If it is "Old Covenant" it is also a Covenant of Grace. I am thinking of Galatians 3:8.
" And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.
Are not concepts of the Gentile nations being blessed in faithful Abraham concepts of Grace? The phrase "preached the gospel" in verse 8 seems very strong in its theology. Certainly we cannot see pure works in the Abrahamic Covenant. The covenant also made Gentiles "Sons of Abraham" by faith (see verse 7). So then, do we consider the Abrahamic Covenant to be related to the Covenant of Grace? If so, is it also part of the New Covenant?"
In Deuteronomy 10:12-16, God wanted His people to circumcise their hearts and obey His commands. In Deuteronomy 30:1-10, it prophesies about a time when God will circumcise their hearts and they will return to obedience to God's law and be blessed in accordance with the promise. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that God's law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented a possibility and as a choice, not as God giving the law in order to curse His children for failing to do what was impossible for them to do. In Galatians 3:10-11, the curse in Deuteronomy 28 is not for those who rely on God's law, but for those who do not. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send his Spirit to lead us to obey His law, and in Jeremiah 31:33, God will put His law in our minds and write it on our hearts by means of the Spirit, so these verses are describing God circumcising our hearts and leading us to obey His law and you are correct to connect the New Covenant that Ezekiel and Jeremiah speak about with Deuteronomy 30:6. Furthermore, in Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God's law, which was the same way to tell for a Jew, and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those with uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey God's law.Also, I would mention the inter-working or continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and the New Covenant. I do not want to present this as though there are no differences in the Covenants of the Bible, I want to recognize the diversity also. But as for their inter-relationship I would cite the book of Deuteronomy.
In 6:5 we have the command... "and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Of course this command is repeated several times in the book of Deuteronomy. Then in Deuteronomy 29:4 we read, "but Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." So then, Israel never had a chance to Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart. It was a certain give in that they would disobey the command of Deuteronomy 6:5. No chance at all. Thus when we read in Deuteronomy 30:1, "And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither Jehovah thy God hath driven thee," it is obviously inevitable that Israel would come under the curse. Of course we note the term "curse." A part of the curses is that Israel will be dispersed and go into captivity. Paul recognizes this certainty of curse also in Galatians 3:10 is true, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." Doing the law is impossible because one cannot make themselves "Love the Lord they God with all thy heart." Not only is disobedience inevitable, but even repentance is impossible. On the other hand, Deuteronomy 30:2 speaks of repentance and obedience with all the heart. It says, "2 and shalt return unto Jehovah thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul;" The means or power of this repentance is mentioned in Deuteronomy 30:6, "And Jehovah thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." So then, the repentance of verse 2 assumes the work of God in verse 6. Verse 6 is then the seed thought which the later "New Covenant" of Jeremiah and Ezekiel speaks of. The New Covenant provides what we as Reformed people call "regeneration." A part of regeneration is that we "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart." Of course Christ had discussions in the Gospels on this phrase. ( See Luke 10:27 "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself."). When the Lawyer ask Christ what one must do to be saved, the Lawyer correctly quoted the demands from Deuteronomy. Christ correctly approved of what the Lawyer said. (vs 28, "And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.) Something was left out. Deuteronomy 30 verse 6 tells us that when we "Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart" that is the work of God in man, and not a work man can do for God. So then, what that is the command (yes, the command of Deuteronomy) it was not a command that the Lawyer could obey. Something was being left out. Repentance and obedience from the heart is the work of God in Deuteronomy 30:6. Without the circumcised heart, no one can "Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart." They Lawyer could no more succeed then the ancient Jews before him. The Lawyer only would place himself under the curse spoken of by Paul.
Well, I have ranted enough. One thing I question is if the Covenants can be so separated that we can identify a Covenant of Works without grace, or a Covenant of Grace without works. I question the validity of seeing two distinct over-riding Covenants in the Bible. I think one would be preferable. I see a greater inter-relationship in the Covenants then those terms seem to allow. Where does the Covenant of Works end, and the Covenant of Grace begin? It seems all grey to me. This is not to say I do not see any difference between the concept of works and grace. Oh my, there is huge differences. But do the terms "Covenant of Works" and "Covenant of Grace" require such a separation of works and grace that they do not properly reflect the true inter-related nature of the biblical covenants? Well, as I said, I am no authority on this issue.