Notes on “Abraham’s Four Seeds” by John G. Reisinger

[JM]

This post is just a few notes I made while reading “Abraham’s Four Seeds” by John G. Reisinger. It's not ment to convince anyone of Reisinger's position, I just thought it would be good to discuss some of his points. Forgive spelling mistakes, etc. these are just personal notes.

“Logic is a good mistress, but a very bad master.”​

Introduction
- The point is made in the introduction, about the logical fallacy of ‘ether or’ your either a dispensationalist or a covenantalist.
- Reisinger makes a good point about Romanish teaching still remaining in the teachers of the Reformation, Sacralism being one.
- Makes mention about the on going problem in the PCA with Theonomy because the WCF and the Puritan legacy remains on there side.
- Baptists can’t look to the Anabaptists for the doctrines of Grace, they can’t accept dispensationalism as taught in the Scofield Bible and yet they can’t deny the WCF in total.
- The modern Covenant view professed by Covenant theologians are the heirs of the Puritans and therefore Theonomy.
- Pionts JGR makes and I agree with, no system is total consistent with many texts in Scripture, and the same texts force me to accept things offered by other systems.
- It’s a good thing when people examine their presuppositions and admit when they assumed ideas to be truth when in fact there not.

Chapter 1
- Abraham’s justification was used by Paul in Romans 4 to illustrate God’s pattern for saving all believers in all ages.
- From Gen. 12 to Rev. we find the story of Abraham’s seed in the world.
- “5. Christ came into this world "to show mercy to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant, the oath He swore to our father Abraham." (Luke l:72,73)”
- The Gospel is the fulfillment of the Covenant made with Abraham.
- Galatians 3:7 = all who have faith are Abraham’s children, we are blessed with Abraham v.9 because of this faith and Christ died so this blessing might come onto the gentiles v. 14.
- Abraham experienced the justification of faith in the promise of the Gospel (Gal. 3:6-9, 18), we experience the same justification because we are Abraham’s true seed (Gal. 3:29).
- The idea of historic redemption is related to “Abraham and his seed,” only Christ is found in both the Old and New Testaments linking salvation to the seed.
- The major differences between dispensational and covenant approach is related to the idea of Abraham’s seed and what that means, JGR gives a list of questions that help identify the presuppositions of each school.
- When the term dispensationalism is use it means that found in the Scofield Bible, when Covenantalism is used it means the Westminster Confession of Faith.
- Huh, never thought about it but if JGR is correct, both dispey’s and covey’s believe the physical seed are Abraham’s seed. The dispey claims Israel is still in existence but set aside, the covey claims their children are Abraham’s seed. Both make the physical children the heirs.
- “It is rather amazing (and to a Reformed Baptist, amusing as well) to hear a Dispensationalist plead the "unconditional covenant made with Abraham and his seed" as the foundation of his belief in a separate and future purpose for the Nation of Israel, and then hear a Paedobaptist plead the VERY SAME "unconditional covenant made with Abraham and his seed" as the foundation for his infant baptism.”
- Both systems are based upon previous ideas, both systems assume they’re true and then set about defending them and everything seems to fit until you try to prove the presuppositions. That’s when it seems to fall apart.
- In Gal. 3:16 Paul argues for ‘seed’ and not ‘seeds’ and that one seed is Christ.
- “If our theological view holds that the "promise to Abraham and his seed" (singular) involves either the Jews and their physical children or Christian parents and their children, then we are contradicting Paul's statement in Gal 3:16.”
- If we apply Gal. 3:16 to Christian parents or Jews, it voids Paul’s argument, and contradicts the promise to the seed of Abraham because it has nothing to do with physical birth…but faith.
- True faith and not birthright determined salvation.
- Renewal by the Holy Ghost due to electing work of Grace is the only way one can access the promise made by Abraham (Romans 9:11, 23-24; Hebrews 6:13-15).
- Thing Promised: seed, nation, land / Physical Fulfillment: Isaac, Israel, Palestine / Spiritual Fulfillment: Christ as the true seed, Church as the true nation, Salvation rest as the true land.

Chapter 2
- Abraham has four distinct seeds listed by the author: 1. natural seed/progeny, 2. special seed/Jacob chosen not Esau for God’s purposes in redemption, 3. spiritual seed, 4. unique seed which is Christ.
- Dispy’s and Covey’s both mix #’s 2 and 3.
- The nature seed has no advantage over the true, spiritual seed of Abraham. The idea that one is born into covenant is false. Romans 3:1,2
- The Jew had many advantages according to the strict “preaching” of the Gospel, but their spiritual station before God didn’t change based upon this and just as a child of a believer today shares in the teaching of the Gospel the status remains the same until the spiritual rebirth happens.
- We find both “Esau’s” and “Jacobs” or unbelievers and believers born into covenant homes, one is loved and regenerated the other hated.
- It should be noted that God compares two nature seeds of Abraham with only one being an heir to the promise, covenant born means little in terms of salvation.
- “We must remember that the legal covenant at Sinai was not given to regenerated and justified believers to "aid them in sanctification." Most of those people were not regenerate. The law covenant was laid on the conscience of a generation of blind rebellious sinners to convict them of their unbelief and to kill their hope in their own righteousness! That covenant only ministered grace as it effected the knowledge of sin and spiritual death in an Israelite's heart and led him to faith in the gospel covenant given to Abraham.”
- The Mosaic covenant was a death sentence (II. Cor 3:6-9 and Rom. 7:9,10) to the people described in Deut. 29:4 and Heb. 3:18 - 4:2. This covenant is Gracious but in purpose, to show this prideful people their sin and pride, and then to kill it.
- The one covenant with two administrations after Gen. 3:15 is then destroyed.
- Quote: “The nation of Israel is not the body of Christ, even though the body of Christ is the true Israel.” This statement helps to make sense of both the covey and dispey view of Israel in a much more Biblical manner, for the covenant theologian can’t accept the first part of the statement and the dispensationalist can’t accept the last. Humm…
- We can’t find one verse that teaches the “Covenant of Works” or the “Covenant of Grace,” not one. I find this troubling.

Chapter 3
- Ishmael, Esau and Jacob were all true sons according to the flesh and therefore circumcised.
- It was Jacob (who latter become Israel) that took hold of the promises by faith, Ishmael and Esau did not. Jacob held a unique place within redemptive history.

 

[JM]

Chapter 4
- The true spiritual seed of Abraham are all true believers in every age, “And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
- JGR gives the following:
Abraham’s Spiritual Seed
1. the “election of grace” – Romans 11:5, 9:23:26
2. the “saved” of all ages – Galatians 3:24-29
3. “the Bride of Christ” – Revelations 21:1-3, 9-4
- I agree with this teaching, that God cannot say to the Church what He said to Israel and visa versa, the N.C. was made possible by the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 11:24-26.
- The believer under the New Covenant is in a better position because of what Christ did; we have eternal security for one example. The obligations of the New Covenant are met for sure (Heb. 7:22), and the New Covenant community is guarantee with the promise, that the Holy Ghost will work obedience within the believer.
- The Mosaic Covenant contains “IF’s.” The idea the author is making is simply this, the covenant was given to Moses to show how far from God they were. If they truly loved God they’d keep His commands but they didn’t and so were set aside with the N.C.
- JGR maintains a position similar to the dispensationalist considering the legal nature of the covenant made with Israel on Sinai.
- The personal and spiritual indwelling by God was not done in the O.T. believer as it is done today, Israel was never the “Temple of God” as the Church today is specifically designated.
- This point is helpful, “We must see that every single word like "elect," "chosen," "loved," "redeemed," "son," etc. that describes Israel's relationship to God as a nation has a totally different connotation when the identical words are used of the Church's relationship to God. You cannot mix spiritual and natural. You cannot treat the type as the reality.”
- In the redemptive, no one that casts aside God can claim God as their God.
- The doctrine of “carnal Christians” is built upon mixing types with reality,.
- Covenant theology treats every member of the nation of Israel as if they were justified by the blood of Christ, even though most died in unbelief. (This isn’t explicitly stated, but it’s the logical outcome of this theological presuppositions.)

Chapter 5
- The N.T. is the fulfillment of the O.T. promises made to Abraham with Christ being the Keystone to both testaments.
The book lists the following as a quick overview of Christ as the unique seed of Abraham:
1.Purposed He is God's eternal Lamb. Rev 13:8
2.Predicted He is the Seed of Woman. Gen 3:15
3.Promised He is the Seed of Abraham. Gen 12:3
4.Pledged He is the Son of David. II Sam 7:12
5.Pictured He is the Subject of all Scripture. Luke 24:44,45
6.Presented He is the Fulfillment of every Promise. Luke 1:68-79
7.Positioned He is the Exalted Lord and King. Acts 2:29-30
8.Proclaimed The Sum and Substance of the gospel. Acts 2:36
-Christ had a unique purpose in redemptive history according to His position slain from the foundations of the world, and the prediction in Gen. 3:15, the seed of Abraham Gal. 3:8.
-JGR stresses the need for theologians to use Biblical terms over theological terms, and to allow Scripture to define the terms themselves. Scriptures or theological words should never hold theological meanings unless the meaning can be explicitly stated and proved by other Scriptures. Both dispey’s and covey’s break this rule.
-Reformed theology reinforces the idea of theological terms by stating, “commonly called” in it’s confessions. (Westminster Confession of faith that is.) The question is, who “commonly called” by whom? This is called Analogy of faith.

Chapter 6
-see original chapter, it’s a detailed exposition of Acts 2.

Chapter 7
-1. Never use physical nation of Israel to equate the Body of Christ/Church. 2. Keep the physical and the spiritual seed separate. 3. Never give spiritual meaning to physical blessing because they are only a type. 4. Understand the purpose of the Mosaic covenant and it’s legal ministration of death. 5. Know the covenantal understanding Israel had is not the same the Church has, simply put, everything is better under this better covenant.
-A Baptist can be Reformed but never a Covenant theologian, and the two (Reformed and Covenant) should never be seen as the same thing, at least I think that's the point he's making.

 

[JM]

Chapter 8
- “not all Israel is Israel” simply means that Israel who was privileged as a nation (Rom. 3:1-3) and those who posses true saving Grace.
- Spiritual blessings were never promised to Israel just because they were Israelites, effectual calling is a perfect example given by Paul in Romans 9:11, 24 when the Holy Ghost lead him to contrast two covenant children.
- Further exposition is given on Romans 9 in this chapter.

Chapter 9
- The words of the Abrahamic covenant are found in Gen. 12:1-3.
- JGR makes a point about the land promised, that it would be forever: the nature land promised, the seed would be heirs to the promise and inheritance of the land is forever.
- The land is a type of spiritual rest, the Israelite a type of true believer.
- The land was given to maintain the people from which the Messiah would come out to.
- Genesis 17:7 is spiritual seed, compare to Romans 9:7 and Genesis 17:18-21. This point is in agree with Albert Barnes but John Gill disagrees.
- The addition of the word “everlasting” in Gen. 17:7,8 must be noticed. Covey’s will use this verse to include children in the covenant (which is a noble idea) but then refuse the promise of the land, they spiritualize one aspect of the verse and naturalize the other.
- The word “everlasting” doesn’t mean forever according to the author and gives the following examples: the Aaronic priesthood Ex. 40:12; Num. 25:24, Passover Ex. 12:14; Ex.. 27:21; Sabbath Ex. 31:17; circumcision Gen. 17:13. Everlasting is also linked to that covenant in which the word is being used, if that covenant changes then that changes the way in which we live out the covenant in community. Heb. 7:11,12
- All of the above have been done away with in Christ, even the Sabbath Heb. 4:1-11.
- That which was called everlasting in the above is type and has been fulfilled now in a spiritual sense, Israel is a nation before God forever but in a spiritual sense.
- Points to make: the land promise are not given in the N.T., the land promises are spiritualized in the N.T., the one place we find mention of the land it is clear the land ment something different from the physical land and better. Abraham’s feet were on the land given but his hope was heavenly. Heb. 11:8-13
- Summing up the chapter: every promise is fulfilled in Christ now or will be fulfilled in the New Heavens and New Earth, and everything given the believer in Christ is better then what is given in the natural world. Rev. 21; Heb. 11:39,40.
Thing Promised
- Everlasting priesthood
- Everlasting sanctuary
- Everlasting Sabbath
- Everlasting
- Everlasting circumcision
- EverlastingLand
O.T. Type
- Aaron

- Tabernacle

- Seventh day


- Physical
- Early Jerusalem
N.T. Fulfillment
- Christ

- The Body of Christ

- Salvation rest Heb. 4

- Regeneration

- New Jerusalem
Chapter 10
- Hodge is quoted on Romans 9 and seems to ignore the fact that covenant birth means little in light of “not all Israel is Israel.”
- Paedobaptists make more of a claim then the Jews did when it comes to their children. Hodge makes the point how the seed of Abraham was spiritual and the Jews miss that by including the physical children in the covenant, yet he didn’t see how it applied to him and paedobaptisms.
- Gen. 17:7,8 cannot be applied to our children in light of Romans 9:6. The problem is found in the forced two covenant view they covenant theologians hold to.
- 1. All believers are in Christ 1 Cor. 12:12,13; Gal. 3:26-29. 2. Being in Christ and being part of the Body of Christ is the same thing. 3. We enter the body via Spirit baptism. 4. Before Acts 2 the first three points could not have happened. Paul’s argument against this teaching is found in Gal. 3 and 4.
- The Law helped to keep a distinction between Israel and the Gentile, one example being marriage. A Jew couldn’t marry a Gentile without sinning against God but now, the middle wall as come down and the distinctive factors are no longer. Gal. 3:27,28; Col. 2:14,15
- Many preachers are putting listeners under the Law to be saved, laying the Law to the conscious. But this leads to legalism.
- Martiyn Lloyd-Jones is mentioned.
- We need to be set free from the Law centred life and embrace Christ centred living.
- The idea of a visible/invisible Church is false and not found in the Bible, it allows for unbelievers to be accepted into Church membership along with true regenerated believers. The Church as believer’s only (Baptist) and believer’s and their children (paedobaptists) are at odds.
- The WCF uses two methods in theology: Scripture and the idea that one can deduce from their system with logic. Art. 1 Sec. 6

Chapter 11
- In a nature sense, the great nation promise was fulfilled in Ishmael and Israel. In the fullest sense of the promise it was fulfilled in Christ.
- The O.T. saint wanted on the Messiah and His coming, but he didn’t see the fulfillment until Calvary. Heb. 11:39,40; 1 Pet. 1:10-12 This hope was realized when Christ came and is not postponed until the Millennium.
- Two points: the promise concerns salvation and not land, the members of the covenant are regenerated believers…and not their children.
- Every member in the New Covenant Community is a regenerated believer, we are Kings and Priests.
Old Covenant: circumcision defined the nation irrespective of regeneration.
New Covenant: regeneration defines the Church irrespective of nation.
Old Covenant: obedience was the ground where you received blessings.
New Covenant: both blessing and necessary obedience are assured by Christ.
- Israel was given the promise of being a holy nation IF they obeyed. Ex. 34; 19
- We the Church are the holy nation because of Christ and Christ’s work alone, 1 Pet. 2:6-9.
See chart in this chapter for better understanding of the Body of Christ.

 

[JM]

Sorry for the formatting, I found the book online but lost the link. Here's a link on NCT that maybe helpful: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/nct.html

I noticed John Bunyan listed under this NCT topic: http://www.johnbunyan.org/text/bun-lawgrace.txt

Gotta go, peace.

 

[heymikey80]

"- The point is made in the introduction, about the logical fallacy of ‘ether or’ your either a dispensationalist or a covenantalist."
Yes, it's a fallacy if one excludes the other. But if one drives your position versus the other ....

"- Reisinger makes a good point about Romanish teaching still remaining in the teachers of the Reformation, Sacralism being one."
Mmm, depends on what "Romanish" teaching is meant. Is this "Romanish" in distinction from "Coptic & Eastern Orthodox"? Or is it "Romanish" in distinction from "modern American"?

This point has hammered home to me in a historical perusal of sacramental practice and thought. The idea that baptism had a real if spiritual effect is very early -- even marked out in catacomb quotes.

"- Makes mention about the on going problem in the PCA with Theonomy because the WCF and the Puritan legacy remains on there side."

To my understanding theonomy has largely died the death of a thousand cuts in the PCA. New signees to Gary North's camp up to 2001-2 were gathering from largely dispensational views. The Puritan legacy that built the Westminster Confession was largely against their side, as Bahnsen's removal from Reformed Theological Seminary indicated, as did the opposition from Westminster Theological Seminary.

"- Baptists can’t look to the Anabaptists for the doctrines of Grace, they can’t accept dispensationalism as taught in the Scofield Bible and yet they can’t deny the WCF in total."

That's up to them, but there are a large number of anabaptist ideas that show up in modern American churches.

"- The modern Covenant view professed by Covenant theologians are the heirs of the Puritans and therefore Theonomy."

That's an error. Reisinger is well aware that Covenant theology didn't originate with theonomists; that theonomy was considered by the Assembly and it was omitted from the Westminster standards, and something else is in its place. Should I really go on? The assertion is simply not true.

Westminster's view isn't theonomy. Period. The expiration of Israeli national law demonstrates that fact.

Meanwhile, it's actually crystal clear that Christ's reign used "politico-religious" wording and yet didn't advocate the overthrow of pagan empire. Politics and religion were linked together in ancient times; it's remarkable that Christianity never did really push into civil war in the Roman Empire.

That may have had something to do with the "weapons of our warfare".

"- Pionts JGR makes and I agree with, no system is total consistent with many texts in Scripture, and the same texts force me to accept things offered by other systems."

I'd say that's generally true: no system offers complete consistency without any problem passages. However I find Covenant theology offers a system that at least comprehends problem passages, even if it seems a few things are a little unusual in the interepretation. That seeming oddity could be from my own training. I am not the chief arbiter of reality.

"- It’s a good thing when people examine their presuppositions and admit when they assumed ideas to be truth when in fact there not."

Um, yes. That's why I'm a Covenant thinker. I've been in dispensationalism; I still use a Scofield Bible. I looked at NCT, it's been awhile but I've looked. I found NCT to be good at critiquing other views. And I've found CT thinkers to be fairly good at reconsidering their own views and reforming them to meet the needs of Scripture and new objections.

 

[heymikey80]

"- The Gospel is the fulfillment of the Covenant made with Abraham."
​

We'll probably come back to this, but this is held critically in place by Gal 3:15. NCT sees this directly as fulfilment. Question is, is a covenant still in force whose promises are in force?

"- Abraham experienced the justification of faith in the promise of the Gospel (Gal. 3:6-9, 18), we experience the same justification because we are Abraham’s true seed (Gal. 3:29)."
​

Yes, there's direct correspondence with Abraham -- and note the end, "we are Abraham's true seed". Linking this up, we're Abraham's true seed through Christ in Covenantal thought. We're the seed because we're in union with the Seed.

"- Huh, never thought about it but if JGR is correct, both dispey’s and covey’s believe the physical seed are Abraham’s seed. The dispey claims Israel is still in existence but set aside, the covey claims their children are Abraham’s seed. Both make the physical children the heirs."
​

Unfortunately it's not meant quite the way he's projecting it in Covenantal thought, and I doubt it's precisely that way in Dispensational thought.

Abraham's faith inaugurated a covenant with him and his offspring. That definitely conferred the Covenant on Abe's physical offspring, but only to a specific few. Abe's covenant wasn't established with Ishmael -- and yet Ishmael received the covenant sign. In fact God commanded it. Yet Abe's covenant was established through Isaac -- he also received the covenant sign. The covenant was extended to both sons; the covenant was intended for only one son.

It happened again in Isaac's sons. It was extended to both Jacob and Esau; it was intended for Jacob. (cf Rom 9). It's tough to get our heads around this, but the covenant was extended familially, but not to every descended family, but only by God's choice. It wasn't genetic or ethnic -- else all lines would be covered.

The New Covenant extends the covenant of faith to "the nations", as promised to Abe, by making them sons in Christ by faith much as Abraham was. But ... that means the covenant extended to Abe's kids would be extended to our family. Individuals are still intended by God's choice, same as Abraham's family, through faith.

- “It is rather amazing (and to a Reformed Baptist, amusing as well) to hear a Dispensationalist plead the "unconditional covenant made with Abraham and his seed" as the foundation of his belief in a separate and future purpose for the Nation of Israel, and then hear a Paedobaptist plead the VERY SAME "unconditional covenant made with Abraham and his seed" as the foundation for his infant baptism.”
​

When it exists in the New Testament, in verses like Romans 11:25-30 and Romans 9, it's rather tough to avoid. There's no "guilt by association" here. Gunslinger and law-abider are both aware of the law -- does that make the law-abider a gunslinger? No. The argument is purely associative. My brother dispensationalist also believes in justification by faith, along with me. Oh, my! And oh, pray tell, so does a New Covenant brother! Please. I have no guilt about this.

"- Both systems are based upon previous ideas, both systems assume they’re true and then set about defending them and everything seems to fit until you try to prove the presuppositions. That’s when it seems to fall apart."
​

Hm? Try it with NCT.

"- In Gal. 3:16 Paul argues for ‘seed’ and not ‘seeds’ and that one seed is Christ."
​

And Gal 3:29?

- “If our theological view holds that the "promise to Abraham and his seed" (singular) involves either the Jews and their physical children or Christian parents and their children, then we are contradicting Paul's statement in Gal 3:16.”
​

Mmm, as I move to defend this position you'll actually once again find dispensationalists siding with me. Take a hard, clear look at Romans 11:26a,28 for a minute if you would, please:

"And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
* * *
Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers."

Who are "all Israel" here? Paul says they're "enemies of the Gospel" for the sake of the Roman Christians. Surely they're not believers! Yet they're "beloved in God's choice" for the sake of ... the fathers.

Who could Paul be talking about? Could it be the elect descendants of Abraham? Why would they be beloved for the sake of the fathers? They wouldn't be so beloved unless they were actually "spiritual sons", that is, believers. So they must be believers.

But they're not. They're enemies of the Gospel.

This verse shows they're beloved for some other reason "for the sake of the fathers" than spiritual belief.

"- If we apply Gal. 3:16 to Christian parents or Jews, it voids Paul’s argument, and contradicts the promise to the seed of Abraham because it has nothing to do with physical birth…but faith."
​

Hm? A spiritual son of Abraham, a spiritual seed of Abraham is a believer in Christ. But a physical son of Abraham, a physical seed of Abraham is beloved of God for the sake of the fathers. God commanded the signs of the covenant on Abraham's whole household. No guarantee of faith among every member. But the sign was commanded on them all.

That is what Scripture says, isn't it?

"- True faith and not birthright determined salvation."
​

OK, with some minor qualifications. God's choice determines salvation. Faith does not determine salvation, either. The One believed in determines salvation by His grace. And even faith isn't possible without Him, either. But we know that, right? It's a reversal of the normal connection.

"- Renewal by the Holy Ghost due to electing work of Grace is the only way one can access the promise made by Abraham (Romans 9:11, 23-24; Hebrews 6:13-15)."
​

Yes, the Holy Spirit bears us to embrace the promise of salvation by faith.

"- Thing Promised: seed, nation, land / Physical Fulfillment: Isaac, Israel, Palestine / Spiritual Fulfillment: Christ as the true seed, Church as the true nation, Salvation rest as the true land."
​

Yet Romans 11:26a,28 prevents these seeds from being separated. Will God "have mercy on all" (Rom 11:32)? Or is He just awarding Israel their physical blessings, and not the spiritual ones through His people?

Two verses of Romans 11 isn't the only place Paul draws these two lines together, though. "my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." Rom 9:3-5

This special treatment of the physical children is described again in Romans 4. Paul's not making a distinction without any difference. The circumcised follow in Abe's footsteps, being given the sign of faith (from birth) and following in Abe's footsteps of faith; while Gentiles follow Abe's example as He walked in faith before being circumcised. It's also referred-to glancingly in Romans 2 ("to the Jew first ..."). There is a precedence here. It is familially-oriented. And that can be confused with ethnic lines and other forms of national connection, even when it's not the same.

Ultimately, though, there's a line of thinking to head-off here. Paul doesn't see the Spirit as just offering a figurative "history lesson" in Abraham. The "Spiritual" is not simply the "figurative". Abe isn't an abstract example. He is a man of faith. Abe is not illustrating salvation. Abe is living salvation. And the covenant given to Abraham involves more than just a figurative picture of "baby believers". It's a way to structure "you and your household" of faith. Does that mean your infant kids are all believers, not rejecting the covenant and forever adhering to the Gospel? No more than Ishmael or Esau was. But it does begin a covenant with familial lines and covenant continuity. The covenant is not purely individuistic. It has familial and congregational implications.

 

[ddub85]

@ JM

THIS IS MY RESPONSE TO YOUR FIRST POST. THANKS FOR POSTING ALL OF THIS INFORMATION. IT IS FRUSTRATING TO SEE THE MAIN ISSUE AND DISAGREEMENT BE MISSED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THE MAIN DISAGREEMENT (ONE OF THEM) IS THAT CTERS SAY THEY ARE ISRAEL, AND THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT. CTERS SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT BEING ABRAHAM'S SEED MAKES THEM ISRAEL. THIS SIMPLY ISN'T BIBLICAL. IN ORDER TO BE ISRAEL, ONE MUST BE BORN OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB (ALL THREE OF THEM!!!). THAT SUMMARILY ELIMINATES ALL GENTILES FROM BEING ISRAEL.
WITH THAT SAID, HERE'S MY RESPONSE:
Chapter 1
- The Gospel is the fulfillment of the Covenant made with Abraham.

WHAT COVENANT WAS MADE TO ABRAHAM? THE OLD COVENANT.

- Galatians 3:7 = all who have faith are Abraham’s children, we are blessed with Abraham v.9 because of this faith and Christ died so this blessing might come onto the gentiles v. 14.

WHAT COVENANT WAS ABRAHAM BLESSED WITH? THE OLD COVENANT.

- Abraham experienced the justification of faith in the promise of the Gospel (Gal. 3:6-9, 18), we experience the same justification because we are Abraham’s true seed (Gal. 3:29).

WHAT PROMISE WAS ABRAHAM GIVEN? THE PROMISE OF THE OLD COVENANT.

- The idea of historic redemption is related to “Abraham and his seed,” only Christ is found in both the Old and New Testaments linking salvation to the seed.
- The major differences between dispensational and covenant approach is related to the idea of Abraham’s seed and what that means, JGR gives a list of questions that help identify the presuppositions of each school.

THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ABRAHAM. THEY ARE RELATED TO ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB. CTERS BELIEVE THEY ARE ISRAEL, REPLACING NATURAL ISRAEL. THE BIBLE SAYS ONLY THOSE BORN OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB ARE ISRAEL. THAT IS AT THE HEART OF THE DISCREPANCY. THIS ARTICLE TOTALLY MISSES THAT POINT. FOCUSING ON ABRAHAM ALONE GETS US NOWHERE.

- Both systems are based upon previous ideas, both systems assume they’re true and then set about defending them and everything seems to fit until you try to prove the presuppositions. That’s when it seems to fall apart.
- In Gal. 3:16 Paul argues for ‘seed’ and not ‘seeds’ and that one seed is Christ.
- “If our theological view holds that the "promise to Abraham and his seed" (singular) involves either the Jews and their physical children or Christian parents and their children, then we are contradicting Paul's statement in Gal 3:16.”
- If we apply Gal. 3:16 to Christian parents or Jews, it voids Paul’s argument, and contradicts the promise to the seed of Abraham because it has nothing to do with physical birth…but faith.
- True faith and not birthright determined salvation.

THAT'S GREAT. BUT THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE FACT THAT CTERS ARE CLAIMING THE PROMISES (PLURAL) MADE TO ISRAEL, AND AREN'T SATISFIED WITH THE PROMISE (SINGULAR) MADE TO GENTILES AS PART OF ABRAHAM'S SEED. THIS POINT IS MISSED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. wHEN WE GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE ACTUAL ISSUE IS, THIS WILL BE MUCH EASIER. FOCUSING ON ABRAHAM'S SEED GETS US NOWHERE.

- Renewal by the Holy Ghost due to electing work of Grace is the only way one can access the promise made by Abraham (Romans 9:11, 23-24; Hebrews 6:13-15).
- Thing Promised: seed, nation, land / Physical Fulfillment: Isaac, Israel, Palestine / Spiritual Fulfillment: Christ as the true seed, Church as the true nation, Salvation rest as the true land.

CHURCH AS THE TRUE NATION OF THE SAVED? YES. CHURCH AS THE TRUE NATION OF ISRAEL? NO. NOT BIBLICAL.

Chapter 2
- Abraham has four distinct seeds listed by the author: 1. natural seed/progeny, 2. special seed/Jacob chosen not Esau for God’s purposes in redemption, 3. spiritual seed, 4. unique seed which is Christ.
- Dispy’s and Covey’s both mix #’s 2 and 3.
- The nature seed has no advantage over the true, spiritual seed of Abraham. The idea that one is born into covenant is false. Romans 3:1,2

FIRST OF ALL, THE TRUE SEED IS MADE UP OF BOTH JEW AND GENTILE. ONE DOESN'T BECOME THE OTHER BY ENTERING ABRAHAM'S SEED. A BELIEVER BECOMES ABRAHAM'S SEED, NOT ISRAEL.
SECOND, FOCUSING ON DISTINCT SEEDS WITHIN ABRAHAM IS USELESS. IN TERMS OF COVENANT, BOTH ARE OF THE SAME COVENANT, WITH ONE HAVING A SINGLE PROMISE WITHIN THAT COVENANT (GENTILES), AND THE OTHER HAVING PROMISES WITHIN THAT COVENANT (JEWS). AS FELLOWHEIRS, ONE RECEIVES WHAT IS "ALLOTTED OR ASSIGNED" TO THEM. GENTILES ARE ASSIGNED A PROMISE, AND JEWS ARE ASSIGNED PROMISES. FOCUSING ON DISTINCT SEEDS WITHIN ABRAHAM IS USELESS.

- “We must remember that the legal covenant at Sinai was not given to regenerated and justified believers to "aid them in sanctification." Most of those people were not regenerate. The law covenant was laid on the conscience of a generation of blind rebellious sinners to convict them of their unbelief and to kill their hope in their own righteousness! That covenant only ministered grace as it effected the knowledge of sin and spiritual death in an Israelite's heart and led him to faith in the gospel covenant given to Abraham.”
- The Mosaic covenant was a death sentence (II. Cor 3:6-9 and Rom. 7:9,10) to the people described in Deut. 29:4 and Heb. 3:18 - 4:2. This covenant is Gracious but in purpose, to show this prideful people their sin and pride, and then to kill it.

THE COVENANT WITH MOSES IS NOT THE COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM (GAL 3l17). THE LAW WAS AN ADDITION TO THE COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM (OLD COVENANT). THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENCES OF A COVENANT WITH MOSES IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

- The one covenant with two administrations after Gen. 3:15 is then destroyed.
- Quote: “The nation of Israel is not the body of Christ, even though the body of Christ is the true Israel.” This statement helps to make sense of both the covey and dispey view of Israel in a much more Biblical manner, for the covenant theologian can’t accept the first part of the statement and the dispensationalist can’t accept the last. Humm…

THE STATEMENT IS A FALSE ONE. NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE IS IT SAID THAT THE BODY OF CHRIST IS TRUE ISRAEL, OR ANY KIND OF ISRAEL FOR THAT MATTER. THE BODY OF CHRIST HAS GENTILES, AND THEREFORE CAN'T BE ISRAEL.
THE NATION OF ISRAEL IS A PART OF THE BODY OF CHRIST, JUST AS THE GENTILE NATION IS A PART OF THE BODY OF CHRIST. THE SAVED IN BOTH MAKE UP THE BODY OF CHRIST.

- We can’t find one verse that teaches the “Covenant of Works” or the “Covenant of Grace,” not one. I find this troubling.
Chapter 3
- Ishmael, Esau and Jacob were all true sons according to the flesh and therefore circumcised.
- It was Jacob (who latter become Israel) that took hold of the promises by faith, Ishmael and Esau did not. Jacob held a unique place within redemptive history.

YES, AND THE DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB (ALL THREE OF THEM!!!) ARE ISRAEL. THERE ARE NO OTHERS.

GOD BLESS!

 

[JM]

lol, I got what I asked for and now I need time to take it all in.

Thank folks.

Jason
PS: If I've done a bad job at misrepresenting NCT let me aplologize ahead of time. My posts (unless direct quotes) are my impressions of what the author is trying to say.

 

[JM]

The other night I listened to a talk with O. Palmer Robertson where he stated that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are the same thing. A lot was discussed in a short time and I may have mistaken the point he was making, but it sounded like Mr. Robertson only acknowledged two covenants (works and grace) with different outworkings in history. Would this be considered the classic Presby view? Why is the 'New' Covenant called the 'New' Covenant if it's just a re-working of the old?

Time after time I see NCT assert that John Bunyan and the writers of the first London Baptist Confession were closer in faith to the NCT camp then the Reformed Baptist camp...what do you folks make of it?

Peace,
j

 

[ddub85]

@ JM

If you look closely at the New Covenant, the only change from the Old Covenant is to the PEOPLE. There is no change in the covenant, the law, etc. The only change is to the people.

Most of us miss that fact.

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

The other night I listened to a talk with O. Palmer Robertson where he stated that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are the same thing. A lot was discussed in a short time and I may have mistaken the point he was making, but it sounded like Mr. Robertson only acknowledged two covenants (works and grace) with different outworkings in history. Would this be considered the classic Presby view?

Yes, definitely. The things called "covenants" in Scripture in the Presbyterian view are actually (most of them) administrations of the larger Covenant. The Covenant is essentially a more-abstract "way of relating" in Presbyterian thought.

Why is the 'New' Covenant called the 'New' Covenant if it's just a re-working of the old?

Great question. The reason is because of the wholesale changes to the administration of grace in God's greatest, masterful act: the Son of God and His Crucifixion (Heb 1:1-3).

Frankly, I don't think Scripture uses the term "covenant" a whole lot of times the way Presbyterian systematics uses the term "covenant". It does happen -- but it's not prevalent in Scripture. (I hope I can say that freely enough as a Presbyterian: I have John Murray and a few others to support this position.) Presbyterianism normally uses the term to talk more abstractly about "ways of relating" to God. The word "covenant" can be used this way, don't get me wrong. But more often it refers to added services on top of the relationship. The Mosaic Covenant; the Abrahamic Covenant; the Davidic Covenant; and indeed the New Covenant are actually added-services on top of a core, abstract method of relating to God.

Note how this works: Abraham's covenant impacts the people of God; Moses' covenant additionally impacts the people of God; David's covenant additionally impacts the people of God.

Now the New Covenant comes along.

The reason The New Covenant is so new is (as mentioned before) because of the wholesale changes to the administration of grace in God's greatest, masterful act: the Son of God and His Crucifixion (Heb 1:1-3). It confounded and changed so many people's ideas about God and what He would do to redeem His people, it was bound to be called "the New Covenant". No matter how closely related to what went before, The New Covenant radically reinforced God's true intention all along -- and that surprised and scandalized many, many people.

It prevents people from thinking there's a great natural, moral difference between the people of God and the reprobate. And no matter what God did before to point this out, it never really got through to people! We kept on thinking of our superiority.

We still do, too. But what God did, the New Testament recorded, and that has a tendency to sledge-hammer us back into place when we get too big for our britches (even when we ignore Rom 3:9, e.g.).

Time after time I see NCT assert that John Bunyan and the writers of the first London Baptist Confession were closer in faith to the NCT camp then the Reformed Baptist camp...what do you folks make of it?

Peace,
j

Well, here's the London Baptist Confession on the Law of God in Adam:

God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
​

The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.
​

This doesn't sound quite like what I hear from New Covenant theologians, no.

 

[heymikey80]

lol, I got what I asked for and now I need time to take it all in.

There is just so much stuff in all this. I think it'd be great to try to build some good visual pictures what's going on. I'm not sure I'll have the time to get a balanced picture together for NCT, but here are some of the CT points that might be relevant when comparing it with CT.

There are overarching themes to the covenants being made with men.

Successive covenants have to operate in light of earlier covenants: how to redeem or fulfill broken or shallow or corrupted ideas contained in the earlier covenants; and how to address the reasonable or good or valid conditions of earlier covenants.(Gal 3:15ff)

Successive covenants offer new insights into the spiritual inner workings of the relationship with God, without offending in principles (read: the "themes", the "overarching" covenant principle) underlying the prior covenants. (2 Cor 3)

Successive covenants may also extend the covenant relationship to new parties, in line with these new insights, or to fulfill ancient promises extending God's relationship to new parties. (Gal 3-4)

Old covenants may be misinterpreted or mired in ritual or ethnicity or nationalism, or simply broken by men without apparent hope of reinstitution or redemption. (Matt 5-7) Their status when a new covenant arrives, is not necessarily the "right" interpretation of what the covenant should be. In fact it's normally the need for reformation (cf. Heb 9:9-10) that brings about a new covenant.

Covenants with the people of God are ... still with the people of God (cf. Rom 11:25ff), that people are still identified the same way even when the actual subjects change (e.g. to Gentiles, but see also Rom 9). The New Covenant doesn't obliterate the Old, it operates in light of all prior covenants and applies to the people of God (Rom 11). So the New Covenant is "in line" with the Mosaic Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3, 1 Cor 10, Heb 11:29). People must become party to the New Covenant to remain part of the people of God: they can't simply stop at their own interpretation of Moses, say, and declare, "OK, that's good enough for me." (Rom 3:19-31) It has to be good enough for God. God institutes the covenants, He sets the terms for relationship.

The covenant relationship in Old Testament times was "the righteous shall live by faith" (Hab 2:??), as it is in the New Testament (Gal 3, Rom 4). God's terms are much more consistent than a comparison of Moses and Jesus may first reveal: they're not a "this-not-that" comparison, but a "great-greater" comparison (cf. Hebrews 1-3 and elsewhere).

 

[heymikey80]

A couple of things that really didn't ring true to me in "Abe's 4 Seeds" were Reisinger's willingness to split the four seeds as deeply as he did.

I had to ask myself, seriously: Did God really design the "4 Seeds" to be as separated as that? Was God being honest with Abe if He did intend the "4 seeds" to be as separated as that?

And I had to answer, "No."

I'm sorry, but it seems to me if God pledges to be the God of Abraham and His descendants, that means something more than just giving some of them land, or giving Abe Isaac, or giving Abe myriad descendants. And it is certainly a very obscure thing to imply that some distant, unrelated peoples were to become Abraham's descendants through mystical union with One of Abe's descendants.

No, I take God's promise to Abe very seriously: "in you shall all the nations be blessed." I think Abe realized the Seed would be the Reason why the nations would be blessed, but not quite this complicated version of "how". I also think Abe thought of this Seed as being "in the line" of Isaac, but he didn't really get much more than that.

So the "Seed" is the heritage-line through Isaac to Christ. Christ is promised the entire world; the Land Abe was promised will be Christ's; all the Gentiles are blessed through Christ; all the descendants of Abraham through Isaac have resulted for the sake of God sending this one Seed, Christ Jesus. And all those (Israelites or not) who turn to Christ in faith are in union with the Seed, and thus heirs to the full range of promises made to Abraham. We reign as kings in the New Creation, the Creation redeemed from its corruption.

So ... I can't see "four seeds" because I guess I'm seeing the One Seed as so central to the promises' fulfilment.

 

[JM]

I let this thread sit for a while, I'm still working it out.

 

[heymikey80]

I let this thread sit for a while, I'm still working it out.

I know, this one is really tough to get your mind around. If you dove hard into Covenantal theology, you'd simply find it works differently from the way New Covenant theologians think it does. The Old Testament is not the Christian moral stories; it's real people grappling with the grace of the real God.

That was another thing that really choked me when I realized where this went. Justification by faith is an Old Testament principle. It's quoted from Habakkuk. The covenant of promise and not Law explicitly stretches back to Abraham, according to Rom 4:13, Gal 3:15.

So ... the idea of justification by works of Law isn't some intervening Old Covenant concept, which the New supersedes. It was not the way the Old Covenant worked. The Old Covenant was a premonition of the New Covenant. But it was misinterpreted into justification by works of Law by the Second Temple period (and beyond in rabbinic Judaism).

I recently had to teach Micah, and as I went through it, I started realizing I was looking at the Old Covenant as a "works of law" system. But when you look at it as a "communion of grace" system, it comes alive vividly. Why would God care if people were bilked out of their homes and property, as long as it was done lawfully? He'd care because He was building a communion of His unmerited favor, not a nation of laws. Micah is infested with attacks of people who follow the letter of the Law, yet who have no grace for God's people.

And to me that's what New Covenant Theology misses. The Old Covenant worked in this "gracious-premonition" way, too. But First Century Israel did not. And that was the problem Paul put to the Jewish theology of the day: "For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." Rom 10:3

Now, I'm using "Old Covenant" in the Scriptural sense, to identify the Mosaic Law and/or it's covenant. I'm not using the systematic-theology term "Old Covenant", which extends back to the Garden of Eden. Again, I think NCT has a point that we need to use Scriptural terms here, and carefully qualify what we're talking about. (And I don't propose to contravene the role of the Adamic Covenant: "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" and the Covenantal view is well-supported in Scripture.)