Entering the Covenant

[Jonaitis]

I will be a little more clear:

The Abrahamic Covenant was a dualistic covenant, he had a spiritual and physical seed, with spiritual and physical promises. In its carnal, plain nature, the Abrahamic Covenant defined the essential structure of the Old Covenant (you shall possess a land, become a nation, and kings shall come forth from you). In its spiritual nature (not necessarily in substance), it promised another Covenant in his offspring, who is Christ. In Christ, all nations are blessed. We, being in Christ, who is Abraham's offspring, inherit the spiritual promises by faith made to Abraham regarding eternal life and righteousness, being heirs with him of that hope and a partaker of the Holy Spirit. But, this is of another covenant in substance from Abraham's covenant. Christ is fulfillment of his covenant's end.

 

[Tree of Life]

A covenant is at its heart an agreement between 2 or more parties. God's moral law requires no agreement on our part so therefore is NOT an intrinsic part of any covenant. That way those not in any covenant are still judged by it.

I don't think this makes Biblical sense. God entered into a covenant with Adam and all his progeny. Therefore all the children of Adam (mankind) is in some sort of covenant relationship with God.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes, by faith in the promises that weren't yet realized. His covenant was in substance different than the CG, his covenant promised it yet was distinct from it in nature.

So would you say that the CG was somehow administered to Abraham?

 

[Tree of Life]

If non-covenant members are under the law, then moral laws inevitably are annexed to any covenant. It is always transparent to all transactions. You could lose the promises if you failed to fulfill the moral law...

Yes anyone who is "under the law" is in a covenant.

 

[Tree of Life]

A covenant is at its heart an agreement between 2 or more parties. God's moral law requires no agreement on our part so therefore is NOT an intrinsic part of any covenant. That way those not in any covenant are still judged by it.

I think the Suzeraine Treaty model makes better sense of the Biblical covenants. O Palmer Robertson defines a covenant as "a bond in blood sovereignly administered." The "sovereignly administered" bit means that we don't agree to the covenant. God sets the terms and tells us how it's going to be because he's God. We don't have the option to negotiate, modify, or refuse to enter the covenant. God is Lord and we are his creatures. It is not a bi-lateral covenant in that sense.

 

[Dave-W]

I think the Suzeraine Treaty model makes better sense of the Biblical covenants. O Palmer Robertson defines a covenant as "a bond in blood sovereignly administered." The "sovereignly administered" bit means that we don't agree to the covenant. God sets the terms and tells us how it's going to be because he's God. We don't have the option to negotiate, modify, or refuse to enter the covenant. God is Lord and we are his creatures. It is not a bi-lateral covenant in that sense.

I do not agree with that at all. We always have the choice. (and pay the consequences if we choose poorly)

 

[Tree of Life]

I do not agree with that at all. We always have the choice. (and pay the consequences if we choose poorly)

The consequences are the curses of the covenant. That's not a choice to not enter the covenant. The curses actually imply that we are in the covenant. We have a choice to violate the covenant that God sovereignly makes with us.

 

[Dave-W]

The consequences are the curses of the covenant. That's not a choice to not enter the covenant. The curses actually imply that we are in the covenant. We have a choice to violate the covenant that God sovereignly makes with us.

I would take that as a difference in our outlooks, you being reform/calvinist and me leaning more toward the wesleyan/arminian. (which I find much more compatible with Messianic theology)

 

[friend of]

Well, according to Calvinism yes there could be. Because an elect may be in a state of unbelief for a long time before God converts their hearts and minds. But they can be considered in that covenant because of their predestination status.

 

[Tree of Life]

I would take that as a difference in our outlooks, you being reform/calvinist and me leaning more toward the wesleyan/arminian. (which I find much more compatible with Messianic theology)

When I say that God sovereignly makes a covenant with people I'm not talking about his sovereign predestining of people to salvation.

I'm saying that God creates us and puts us into a covenant with himself that we don't have the option of not being in. Adam, for example, was put into the garden and given certain commands that had associated blessings and consequences. Adam could be faithful to the covenant or he could violate it (he violated it). But he could not "opt out" of the covenant. Adam could not say: "No thanks God, I don't want to be in that covenant. So I'm going to eat this forbidden fruit and you can't punish me because I didn't agree to being under your laws!"

 

[Dave-W]

I'm saying that God creates us and puts us into a covenant with himself that we don't have the option of not being in.

And I maintain that is NOT a covenant at all.

 

[Tree of Life]

And I maintain that is NOT a covenant at all.

Was Adam in a covenant with God? When did he enter into that covenant? When did he agree to its terms?

 

[Dave-W]

Was Adam in a covenant with God? When did he enter into that covenant? When did he agree to its terms?

Yes. AFTER the fall. It was why he made sacrifices and told his sons to do the same.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes. AFTER the fall. It was why he made sacrifices and told his sons to do the same.

Why not before the fall? What verse describes Adam entering into this covenant? What verse describes him accepting the terms?

 

[Jonaitis]

So would you say that the CG was somehow administered to Abraham?

Yes, retroactively from Christ.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes, retroactively from Christ.

So then the CG was administered in both the NT era and the OT era, although in different ways?

 

[Dave-W]

Why not before the fall?

Because as you said, Adam had no choice in the matter.
No agreement = no covenant.

What verse describes Adam entering into this covenant? What verse describes him accepting the terms?

It is inferred from Cain and Abel bringing their sacrifices.

 

[Jonaitis]

Well, according to Calvinism yes there could be. Because an elect may be in a state of unbelief for a long time before God converts their hearts and minds. But they can be considered in that covenant because of their predestination status.

Reformed theology, which includes the doctrines of Calvinism, teaches that the Covenant of Redemption already promised all the necessary means and ends for the elect to be saved. If the elect were chosen beforehand, it was based on an agreement between members of the Trinity in eternity past, which was promised in time (Covenant of Grace), and fulfilled in Christ (New Covenant). The elect were the reward of Christ, with all the means of their conversion and total redemption, if he were to obey the terms of that covenant agreement (obey the law and suffer for their sins).

 

[Jonaitis]

So then the CG was administered in both the NT era and the OT era, although in different ways?

Nope, the same way. We look back and receive salvation the way they looked forward and received salvation. Christ realized the necessary means in time to accomplish the work.

 

[Tree of Life]

Because as you said, Adam had no choice in the matter.
No agreement = no covenant.

You don't see a covenant there only because you come to the Scriptures with a definition already formed. Why not let the Scriptures shape your definition instead?

It is inferred from Cain and Abel bringing their sacrifices.

Inferred by you. I don't see why this is a good inference.