Search
You searched for 'COVENANT OF GRACE'
I've found 22 results!
Simon Wartanian
|
37,004 views |
65,864 words
|
5:42:00 hours |
04 March 2015 21:27
Simon Wartanian
|
24,548 views |
45,510 words
|
3:58:30 hours |
06 March 2015 23:14
Baptism signifies the new life and the blessings thereof, which the believer has received through faith and repentance. The Confession describes it as “a sign of fellowship with” Christ. Baptism shows our union with Christ, just as He Himself was baptized, so we share in a baptism similar to His and follow His example. Stanford E. Murrell defines baptism as “an ordinance wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, signifies and seals the engrafting of a soul into Christ, and the partaking of the benefits of the COVENANT OF GRACE and our pledge to be the Lord’s.”[5]
We will look at the different aspects of baptism as presented in the New Testament below.
Union With Christ In Death, Resurrection, Newness Of Life
Galatians 3:27
Gal. 3:25-27 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
We are children of God, why? Because we have been baptized into Christ. What does this mean? It means that we identify with Christ and we declare that we belong to Him. What is the meaning of “have put on Christ”? This means that we “have put on his sentiments, opinions, characteristic traits”[6] (cf. Rom. 13:14). We are identifying with Him and saying to those watching that we belong to Him. To Paul’s argument, this then would mean that all who are baptized into Christ are children of God because they have put on His characteristics. They identify with Him. Jamieson, Fausset, Brown give the input of Paul’s argument well when they write: “By baptism ye have put on Christ; therefore, He being the Son of God, ye become sons by adoption, by virtue of His Sonship by generation. God regards us in Him, as bearing Christ’s name and character, rather than our own.”[7] These are realities which baptism signifies, but are not caused by water baptism. The baptism into Christ is not the same as water baptism in the name of Christ. But we will see why that is the case below in our discussions on Romans 6 and Colossians 2.
Romans 6:3-5
Rom. 6:3-5 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
This is the most familiar aspect of baptism amongst Baptists. Baptism symbolizes our death to the old life and our resurrection to the new life in Christ Jesus our Lord. This is even more strengthened when we understand the mode of baptism to be immersion. The whole body goes into the water, symbolizing the death of our old self and identification with Christ’s death, and then we come out of the water, symbolizing the resurrection of the new man in Christ and with Christ. It is a given fact, the apostle assumes, that baptism into Christ, which means to be engrafted in Him and united with Him, of which water baptism is a sign or representation, is a baptism into Christ’s death. This means that in our baptism we are identifying with Christ’s death. Baptism symbolizes the laying down of the old life with Christ and being united with Him in His death. Paul says elsewhere, “I have been crucif...
Simon Wartanian
|
37,056 views |
75,562 words
|
6:40:27 hours |
04 March 2015 21:39
- Gal. 4:4-5; Rom. 4:1-9
- Gen. 3:15; 1 Peter 1:10-11
- Rev. 13:8
- Heb. 13:8
The price of redemption was paid by Christ...after His incarnation, at the cross (Gal. 3:13; 4:4-5). But this does not mean that its effect did not apply to those who were in happy communion with God. In fact, chapter 7:3 it is said of the COVENANT OF GRACE that “it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality”. This is the covenant of salvation by Christ. Chapter 7:2 says the following about this “COVENANT OF GRACE, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” This is the New Covenant. All the elect before the Incarnation and cross shared in the blessings of the New Covenant even though it was not yet established. They enjoyed the virtue, efficacy, and benefit of having Christ as their High Priest and being in His covenant. All these things were communicated to them before the cross. Redemption by Christ was revealed in the various promises, types, and sacrifices which God gave from the beginning of the world. Even in the promise of the seed which should bruise the serpent’s head, which is also called the Protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15). He was the sacrifice that would save anyone who would put their faith in Him. He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8 KJV), meaning that He was the sacrifice for God’s people even before the creation, being the same yesterday, and to-day and for ever (Heb. 13:8). This is the certainty of God’s plan and redemption of sinners that the saints before the Incarnation shared in the same blessings as we now do even though the price of enjoying these blessings was not yet paid. Yet so certain was God’s plan and promise that these saints of old could participate in the blessings of Christ and His covenant as if the price was paid.
The Retroactive Blood of Christ
Retroactive means “Influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment”.[26] The blood of Christ was active even in the Old Testament. The only way by which people are saved is by faith, and that faith is based on God and His promises, and that was no different in Old Testament times. In the time of Adam, after the Fall, it was in the Seed who would crush the head of the serpent, who was the object of hope (Gen. 3:15). In the time of Noah, the Ark functioned as a picture of being engrafted in Christ to escape the judgment of God. In the time of Abraham, it was the promise that through his Seed the nations would be blessed. Under Moses, it was the sacrifices and types of the Temple. With the Davidic covenant, the people were expecting a King. All those covenants pointed to the one central covenant of Scripture, the New Covenant, whose mediator is Christ the Lord. It is by virtue of this covenant that anyone who was ever saved is saved. Because this is the covenant which Christ mediates. This is the covenant which has as its head Christ the Lord and promises of eternal life and complete forgiveness (Heb. 8:6-13).
Okay, but how were the promises of the coming New Covenant a reality for the Old Testament saints? By virtue of the COVENANT OF GRACE. In 1689 Federalist ...
Simon Wartanian
|
24,942 views |
43,749 words
|
3:48:12 hours |
05 March 2015 19:18
While we are not talking here about the New Covenant specifically, this passage is important in its teaching that the New Covenant is a covenant whose members are all regenerate, therefore, a few observations are in order.
1. In contrast to the priestly ministry under the Mosaic Covenant, Christ’s ministry is more excellent, why? (i) The covenant under which He ministers is better and (ii) the covenant is established on better promises. (i) The New Covenant is better than the Old mainly because it has Christ as its Mediator and High Priest (Heb. 7:21-22). Not only that, but also because the Old Covenant was not a pure COVENANT OF GRACE and the New Covenant is the COVENANT OF GRACE established in time (see chapter 7 for more on 1689 Federalism). (ii) The promises of the New Covenant do not merely pertain to the earthly things, but have their focus on the heavenly and eternal things. We do not have shadows and earthly temporary things like the Temple and the sacrifices, but we now have the reality in Christ. This is what makes the priestly ministry of Christ more excellent and places it above the old Mosaic priesthood.
2. The Mosaic Covenant was not without fault for it demanded perfect righteousness from those who were sinful from birth. This did not work together and therefore, the Lord from the days of Moses (and before) declared the coming of the Christ and thereby the New Covenant which will deal with the problem of our sin and will not be a covenant with which the Lord will find fault. This Old Covenant is described as a covenant in which “they did not continue in my covenant”; a covenant that was broken. The people were faithless from the beginning. The covenant contained unbelievers and believers alike. That the covenant was broken from the beginning may be seen from the fact that when Moses came down from the Mountain of God and broke the Ten Commandments, in that way he pictured the fact that Israel had broken the covenant they just ratified with God. They wandered away so quickly from Him Whose voice shook the earth. The Mosaic Covenant is a covenant which demands perfect obedience in all points (Gal. 3:10), and therefore, sinful man is not able to keep the terms of this covenant. The fault of the covenant mainly lies in the fact that it was given to a sinful people and it had not the ability to deal with their sins as did the New Covenant. It was a subservient covenant pointing to the sin of man and the need for redemption (e.g., Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:23-26).
3. In contrast to the Old Covenant, the New is not like the Old. Meaning, it will not be broken and its people will, in fact, continue in the covenant. This is the exact point which is here ascribed to the Mosaic and it is said that the New Covenant is unlike the Old. Therefore, the New Covenant is at least unlike the Mosaic Covenant respecting this point. Genuine apostasy from the covenant will be impossible, but that was not impossible under the Old Covenant. This does not mean that all the covenantees will obey God perfectly, but it means that no one will be cast out of the covenant. For the covenant is first of all made with Christ Who has fulfilled all conditions of the covenant and then in Christ with every believer. It is a covenant which certainly has conditions, but those conditions are fulfilled by and in the Mediator of the covenant. There are no covenants absolutely without conditions, but the question is merely wha...
Simon Wartanian
|
34,398 views |
77,737 words
|
6:42:45 hours |
05 March 2015 19:46
In this paragraph, we deal with the Law as not being a covenant of works for the believer and about the uses of the law.
Not As A Covenant Of Works
We have already touched upon this subject in the preceding paragraphs, especially paragraph 5, but here I would especially like to discuss the subject of how the law is not a way of salvation nor is it a system of condemnation for the justified believer. Notice that the Confession does not teach that the believer can attain justification or condemnation by the Law. The Law can neither justify the ungodly, nor can it condemn the godly. Rather, the Law of God, which is the moral law as summarized in the Decalogue, is to function as a rule of life and not a system of justification. We have touched upon this many times above in our exposition of passages about the relationship of the Christian and the moral law (see paragraph 5).
Romans 6:14 – Not Under Law But Under Grace
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
This is the favorite text of antinomians and those who reject the Reformed understanding about the Law of God as expressed here. The usual cry is “you are not under law but under grace” and therefore we do not need the Ten Commandments and we are not under any law. But is this really what Paul is teaching? Is Paul teaching that the Christian does not have to obey the Law? That will be contradictory to what he will say in Romans 7:25 and many other places (see above, The Moral Law In Paul).
A little bit of context is mandatory for us to understand the true meaning of this passage. In Romans 6:1, after dealing with the doctrine of justification by faith alone, he expects an objection, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” If salvation is free and has nothing to do with anything that we’ve done, why not continue with sinning? The reason is that we have died to sin with Christ, which is symbolized in baptism. The reason that a Christian cannot live a lifestyle of sin after regeneration is because, he, in Christ, has died to sin. Therefore, from the outset, we see that not being under the law does not mean that we can freely sin. In fact, because we are under grace we should not sin! We have died with Him to be set free from sin (Rom. 6:7). What is sin but the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)? Therefore, to not sin is to live in accordance wi...
Simon Wartanian
|
9,262 views |
4,031 words
|
0:20:42 hours |
27 November 2015 22:25
Although it was really nice to know about all the different positions about infant baptism, the author seeks to directly combat one position and that is the Westminster position (positions 4 and 5). It’s not like from the earliest days of infant baptism that the church understood it was the sign of the COVENANT OF GRACE, or that it did not wash away sin. That is clearly not the case.
The old church practiced infant baptism for other reasons, than the Reformed Paedobaptist churches since the Reformation.
Although I do not believe that infant baptism is a biblical practice, but I must agree with Jeffery Johnson that the Westminster position of Covenant Theology and infant baptism is the closest to the Scripture from the above options. For some people to be truly “Reformed” you have to hold to Covenant Theology which supports the practice of infant baptism, forgetting that there is a difference between Baptist and Presbyterian Covenant Theology. If you would like to learn more about 1689 Baptist Covenant Theology, which is called 1689 Federalism see my attempt to make a case for it when expositing the 7th chapter of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith here.
The Westminster Position
The author spends some time first to explain the Presbyterian/Westminster. The basis of the Westminster position is continuity between the covenants of the Bible.
They understand that the Lord established a covenant of works in the Garden with Adam as the representative of the human race which he broke. Then the Lord established the COVENANT OF GRACE in Genesis 3:15 and onward. This was COVENANT OF GRACE was differently administered under Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. But the essence of these covenants was the same.
The logic is understandable. If infants were admitted into the covenant under Moses and Abraham and the New Covenant is basically and essentially the same, then infants should also be admitted into the New Covenant. The question is, whether if these covenants truly were administrations of the one COVENANT OF GRACE.
The Westminster says the following of the COVENANT OF GRACE in chapter 7 –
Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the COVENANT OF GRACE; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe. (paragraph 3)
As Calvinists, our Presbyterian brethren along with us believe in salvation by grace and in Christ throughout the ages. This is what is here conveyed in the Confession. The essence of the COVENANT OF GRACE is faith and salvation in Christ, although that had different outer form under the various covenants. Abraham did not have as much clarity about the Messiah as we now by the grace of God have. This is expressed in the fifth paragraph –
This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gos...
Simon Wartanian
|
33,199 views |
73,377 words
|
6:24:05 hours |
06 March 2015 19:29
Under The New Covenant
But is the Sabbath only a sign for the Old Covenant? Does the Sabbath have any “sign” function under the New Covenant? Does it only signify that God separated physical Israel and claimed them as His own? Aside from Dispensationalism, we all recognize that the church is the Israel of God. The church is the true people of God. God does not have two peoples, one earthly and one heavenly, but only one people united together in Christ and in the COVENANT OF GRACE. This would imply that we should not restrict the promises made to Israel under the Old Covenant to the ethnic people of Israel, but carefully apply them to the true Israel of God. Of course, this must be done with care and with consideration of what the New Testament also says.
We have seen that the Sabbath is a visible sign of an invisible reality, namely, that God has sanctified His people and claimed them as His own. Do we have any reason to disregard this significance of the Sabbath under the New Covenant? I don’t think so. This is furthermore strengthened by the fact that (1) the Sabbath was not unique to Israel, but it was made for man at the Creation (Mark 2:27-28), and (2) the New Testament does not teach the abrogation of the Sabbath (as we shall see below). Yes, we understand that the Sabbath was specifically given in the texts above to Israel as a sign of the Mosaic Covenant, but is this sign limited only to the Old Covenant people of God? Does not God, giving us the Lord’s Day Sabbath, likewise show to us that He has set His people apart and claimed them as His own in the New Covenant also? The Old Testament assumes the abiding validity of the Sabbath in the last days (e.g. Isaiah 56, 58), and not its abrogation. Joseph Pipa writes concerning the moral nature of the Sabbath command pointing that even Gentiles within Israel were required to keep the Sabbath holy. He writes:
Nevertheless, Nehemiah [13:15-21] applied the Fourth Commandment to Gentiles as well as Jews. From this we conclude that the Fourth Commandment was more than a sign of God’s covenant people with Israel. He required Gentiles living in the land to keep the law as well.[99]
That the Sabbath was given as a sign of the Mosaic Covenant does in no way diminish its original institution, namely, on the seventh day of the Creation. From thence was the Sabbath made and instituted for man. It was not first instituted at Sinai, as we’ve tried to argue. Therefore, its application cannot be limited to physical Israel, but it binds all men everywhere. Yet, it cannot be denied that the Sabbath played a huge role in the Old Testament. God took that which He made for all people in the Creation, renewed it (for it was neglected) and applied it specifically to His covenant people. The fact that the Sabbath was made as a sign of the covenant and a sign between God and His people, in no way limits its application and obligation to His people. The Sabbath commandment itself obligates foreigners to observe the Sabbath (Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14). This observation adds to the strength and significance of the Sabbath. To use the example which Dr. Waldron employed from a friend of his, this is like a woman marrying on her birthday. Now the date of her birth becomes more important and receives more significance because from now on she will not only celebrate her birthday but also the day of her marriage. For Israel, th...
Simon Wartanian
|
28,086 views |
38,282 words
|
3:19:22 hours |
06 March 2015 23:00
The Presbyterian Louis Berkhof defines the distinction in the following way:
the invisible Church is the Church as God sees it, a Church which contains only believers, while the visible Church is the Church as man sees it, consisting of those who profess Jesus Christ with their children and therefore adjudged to be the community of the saints.[4]
We see in this definition the distinction between paedobaptist covenant theology and 1689 Federalism carried out to the church. As the COVENANT OF GRACE, in paedobaptist conception, includes believers and their children, so also the church. In chapter 7, we’ve questioned this constitution and argued that the COVENANT OF GRACE was made with the elect in Christ. We will rehearse a few points below, no doubt, but for a longer discussion on the basis of these points, see chapter 7.
The New Covenant consists only of believers. This is one of the major points which 1689 Federalism stresses. The New Covenant, which is wholly salvific, is only for the elect. In other words, all the members of this covenant, unlike all previous covenants, are redeemed and elect of God from eternity. All the members of the New Covenant are truly regenerate and Spirit-dwelt believers. This is seen, for example, from Hebrews 8:6-13 where all members of the New Covenant, from the oldest to the youngest know the LORD. Not merely know about Him, but truly know Him. Furthermore, this New Covenant is unlike the Mosaic Covenant which had members who were unbelievers and members who were believers. This New Covenant is one which will not be broken like the Mosaic was and thus, apostasy is impossible in the New Covenant (see chapter 17 and our exposition of texts used to argue for actual apostasy from faith). So basically, the universal or the invisible church consists of the members of the New Covenant, all redeemed and elect believers throughout all ages.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 is one of the most important texts on the New Covenant. It tells us what kind of covenant it is, namely, unlike the Old Covenant. It tells us what its blessings are, namely: (1) God will put His law within us; (2) God will write His law on our hearts; (3) God will be our God and we will be His people; (4) we will know the Lord; (5) God will forgive our sins and remember them no more. It describes its members as those who know the LORD. To know about God is one thing and a necessary thing. But to know God is wholly another. Various attempts have been made from various groups to make exceptions to what is said in this passage about the New Covenant, its nature and its members. Dispensationalists usually say that this covenant is not yet inaugurated because it speaks of Israel and Judah. Some of them say that it will be fulfilled in the Millennium, others say that the New Covenant which we enjoy is a foretaste of Jeremiah 31. Our paedobaptist brethren usually say that only in the eschaton will everyone know the LORD and thus, it is not necessary for membership in the administration of the covenant or a local church.[5] In this way, they justify infant church membership. Our position is that this Jeremiah 31 covenant, as interpreted by the Holy Spirit in Hebrews, is the fully inaugurated New Covenant in Christ’s blood. We make a distinction between the invisible church (this paragraph) and the visible church (next paragraph). While those who make up the visible church should have been part of the invisible church...
Simon Wartanian
|
21,729 views |
23,400 words
|
2:03:21 hours |
04 March 2015 21:54
Now that we’ve dealt with the first three things in Romans 8:29-30, namely God (1) foreknowing us and (2) electing us (chapter 3) and (3) effectually calling us (chapter 10), we come to the 4th point in the five-pointed chain—justification. What is justification? Dr. Wayne Grudem defines it in this way:
Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which he (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in his sight.[2]
We could go on and on by giving Protestant theologians who defined justification in this way. Louis Berkhof says:
Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner. It is unique in the application of the work of redemption in that it is a judicial act of God, a declaration respecting the sinner, and not an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion, and sanctification. While it has respect to the sinner, it does not change his inner life. It does not affect his condition, but his state, and in that respect differs from all the other principal parts of the order of salvation. It involves the forgiveness of sins, and restoration to divine favor.[3]
The Baptist A.H. Strong defined it as:
By justification we mean that judicial act of God by which, on account of Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith, he declares that sinner to be no longer exposed to the penalty of the law, but to be restored to his favor. Or, to give an alternative definition from which all metaphor is excluded: Justification is the reversal of God’s attitude toward the sinner, because of the sinner’s new relation to Christ. God did condemn; he now acquits. He did repel; he now admits to favor.[4]
Section one first deals with a distortion about justification and then gives the biblical position.
Not Infusion of Righteousness
Roman Catholics believe in what may be called “infused righteousness.” This means that in salvation, the merits of the Lord Jesus on the cross are infused with the righteousness of the sinner and together they constitute the basis of salvation. Meaning, Christ’s righteousness is not enough, rather it is given to help us with our own righteousness through works and obedience to God and the Roman Catholic Church. In their own words, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:[5]
This “infused righteousness” is attained by a work, namely baptism. That is the way you get this righteousness. Basically, this position teaches that salvation by grace al...
Simon Wartanian
|
15,915 views |
13,619 words
|
1:11:21 hours |
06 March 2015 23:22
Names
The regular name of the ordinance among Protestants is the Lord’s Supper, but there are also other names that are used for this ordinance.
The Lord’s Supper
This name comes from 1 Corinthians 11:20. There, the apostle calls this ordinance the Lord’s Supper. This indicates that this is a special supper, set aside from regular ones because the Lord Christ claims it as His own and as is usual in the ancient world, a supper with someone was not a parallel to eating something with a stranger at McDonald’s. But dining with someone included communion with that person, therefore, the Lord’s Supper is a supper of close communion with the Lord Who redeemed us and invites us to His table.
The Table Of The Lord
Instead of going to the pagan tables of the false gods and offering their sacrifices there, the Christians are invited to the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 10:21). Eating at this table indicates close communion with Christ. Paul says, if you’re going to the table of false gods, you are participating and communing with demons. Therefore, when one goes to the table of the true and only Lord, they are communing and participating with the true God. This table is holy because the Lord claims it as His own for His communion with His people. In this connection, we may call the Lord’s Supper, Communion, because in partaking of it, the faithful have a real and spiritual communion with their Savior as He administers grace to them.
The Breaking Of Bread
This is the first designation of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament. It is used in Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. The early Christians were continually celebrating the Lord’s Supper in the manner which their Lord did. As Christ took bread and broke it, so the Christians called this ordinance the breaking of bread, which reminded them of Christ’s body given for them. Notice that in Acts 20:7, the purpose of the church gathering on the Lord’s Day, is to break bread. They were gathered on the Christian Sabbath, as a church, to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
Eucharist
Eucharist means thanksgiving and refers to the words of Christ in Luke 22:19 before breaking and distributing the bread to His disciples. The Greek verb for giving thanks is εὐχαριστήσας (eucharistēsas). There is no doubt that thanksgiving should play a fundamental part as we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, thinking of the work of Christ and receiving the benefits thereof anew in a spiritual and close communion with our Savior. But unfortunately, this name is closely associated with the abominable sacrifice of the Mass, therefore, it is not used by Protestant...