Is a Covenant Relationship With God Always By Election?

[Arial]

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[Josheb]

Is a Covenant Relationship With God Always By Election?

Thoughts? Comments?

That depends.

It depends on how "election" is defined. If the term is understood to mean "selection," then the answer is, "Yes, a covenant relationship with God is always by election," and monergistically so. If, on the other hand, the term is understood in the modern sense of the word where either someone "campaigns" to be elected to the relationship as a representative of others or earn the position by a personal achievement anyone could accomplish then, the answer is still yes, but the latter may have nothing to do with God or his selecting or electing anyone. This is particularly true of the soteriologies that predicate election on the belief of the unregenerate sinner prior to God electing them. They "elected" themselves by their belief and God is required to save them and thereby include them among the "elect" with whom He has a covenant relationship.

The former is the singular precedent repeatedly demonstrated in the Bible. Noah did not ask to be elected and there was nothing in or about his person that qualified him above others. The same is true of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Israel, all of the Judges, all of the prophets, and all of the apostles. All the unexplained examples must reconcile with the singular example that is provided.

 

[Arial]

If, on the other hand, the term is understood in the modern sense of the word where either someone "campaigns" to be elected to the relationship as a representative of others or earn the position by a personal achievement anyone could accomplish then, the answer is still yes, but the latter may have nothing to do with God or his selecting or electing anyone

What does the OP title state?

This is particularly true of the soteriologies that predicate election on the belief of the unregenerate sinner prior to God electing them. They "elected" themselves by their belief and God is required to save them and thereby include them among the "elect" with whom He has a covenant relationship.

What is the truthful answer to the question though---various beliefs aside, and how would it be supported?

The former is the singular precedent repeatedly demonstrated in the Bible. Noah did not ask to be elected and there was nothing in or about his person that qualified him above others. The same is true of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Israel, all of the Judges, all of the prophets, and all of the apostles. All the unexplained examples must reconcile with the singular example that is provided.

Absolutely.

What would you consider an unexplained example? IOW what could someone who did not believe that God elects those He brings into covenant with Him, to use as a support to their case?

I will give one, based on that views assumption that we choose Christ and then God elects us. The one most often quoted to me in these debates.

Deut 30:19 Therefore choose life--- That is usually all that is quoted of a rather lengthy discourse by Moses that began in chapter 29, and that actually contains the answer to the supposed dilemma, that rules out choosing to believe in Christ (as opposed to actually believing). For one thing, the economy of God in Law, is different than that of grace.

In case some are confused by the use of "economy" it comes from the Greek word oikonomia. Oikos meaning house and nomos meaning administration.

 

[Josheb]

What does the OP title state?

Nothing. The OP's title is a question, not a statement. The op's title asks, "Is a covenant relationship with God always by election?"

What is the truthful answer to the question though---various beliefs aside,[?]

The correct answer is "Yes." Correct answers are always truthful.

and how would it be supported?

With scripture.

I did not quote any specific scriptures because (overwhelmingly) most CCAM members know their Bible sufficiently to recognize my allusions.

Absolutely.

What would you consider an unexplained example? IOW what could someone who did not believe that God elects those He brings into covenant with Him, to use as a support to their case?

When I say "unexplained examples" I am referring simply to those occasions when the motives and methods of God are not stated in a specific text. I would not expect anyone to use those examples or to speak where God has been silent (which is what usually happens with synergism). Sometimes the silence is informative, but care and caution should be used interpreting it. For example, the Bible was written overwhelmingly about people who believed in either THE God of the Bible, the Creator of all things visible and invisible, or believers in other gods. There are very few atheists in the Bible, and they are called fools (Psalm 14:1 and elsewhere) and does not have kind or edifying words to say about that portion of humanity (individually or collectively). What that means is that when we use the Bible to understand salvation, or any of its constituent components (like election) we are always talking about examples where a theist is saved, not an atheist.

Our doctrine(s) of salvation, however, must cover how ALL sinful humans are saved for it to be complete. A doctrine that covers only 99.99999999999999999% of the population still has a "hole" in it. No matter how thorough it may be otherwise, that smidgen of ignored or neglected people for whom it cannot or does not explain salvation makes the doctrine incomplete (at best - a doctrine that cannot explain the salvation of every person may well be a wrong doctrine, not merely an incomplete one). One of the problems with synergism is that, by definition, a non-believer is not a believer, and these are ontological conditions. How does a sinfully dead and enslaved sinner change his/her own nature?

• Through hearing
• Through the assertion of the will of his sinful flesh.
• By speaking certain words.
• By magic

Or so the synergist says. The hows and whys of a person who already believes in God is much different than the hows and why of someone who apathetically says there is no God, denying the existence of God, sin, need, salvation, and the possibility of a changed nature and a changed life at the behest of anything that does not exist. Notice I have stayed away from the word, "denied." In order for something to be denied it has to be acknowledged in some way. True atheists don't give God and salvation a thought and have no emotional expression. The antitheist is a completely different creature than the atheist. The antitheist is still invested in the premise, "God exists."

How does God save the person who ontologically says God does not exist? Scripture is largely silent on that matter because the overwhelming amount of content in the Bible is about sinful theists getting saved and most of that is about how believers in the one, true God are converted to Christ for the propitiation of their sin. In both cases the one, singular, sole, solitary, uniform precedent repeated throughout scripture from beginning to end is the God-initiated, monergistically initiated covenant. No election in the Bible occurs outside of that context. There are other conditions in which election occurs. The Bible, however, does not always state, or repeat, the already-established precedent(s). On those occasions we can reasonably, rationally, exegetically infer the existence of such things when scripture is silent becuase there's only one option from which to choose an explanation.

I will give one, based on that views assumption that we choose Christ and then God elects us. The one most often quoted to me in these debates.

Deut 30:19 Therefore choose life--- That is usually all that is quoted of a rather lengthy discourse by Moses that began in chapter 29, and that actually contains the answer to the supposed dilemma, that rules out choosing to believe in Christ (as opposed to actually believing). For one thing, the economy of God in Law, is different than that of grace.

In case some are confused by the use of "economy" it comes from the Greek word oikonomia. Oikos meaning house and nomos meaning administration.

Yep. Huge problem exegetically, and problematic for multiple reasons. The chief among them is that volition is never assigned causality in election (or salvation as a whole). Synergists always approach the matter humanistically when assert a sinner's volition. The mortal and enslaving nature of sin is acknowledged, but only in part. Some residual volitional agency is assumed sufficient for the arena of salvation from the fatal disease of sin. The message is. "I can make God cure me if I just believe because God saves those who believe, He has to do so." The second problem is the Deuteronomy 30 group is already living in a divinely monergistically-initiated covenant relationship. Another problem is the fact the Bible plainly states Israel was not chosen because of any of their own attributes (choosing God would be an attribute attributable to the choosers). Another problem is scripture elsewhere plainly states we didn't choose God; He chose us, AND no one seeks after God. As far as the economy, or oionomia, or dispensation goes..... that is a wholly man-made invention, a gross addition to God's word. The fact is the choice - the opportunity to choose - was given and it was given monergistically (noe one asked for it), and it was given long after that group had been chosen (elected and/or selected), called, commanded, AND, ironically, brought out of the land of slavery to the land promised long before any of them were born. They did absolutely nothing to get to that moment of choice (in fact, most of the original group were killed to prevent them from reaching the land of promise and most of those purporting to choose life would end up as covenant breakers.

 

[Arial]

What that means is that when we use the Bible to understand salvation, or any of its constituent components (like election) we are always talking about examples where a theist is saved, not an atheist.

The OP question is not about who is saved in relation to ontological views, but whether or not God always elects those to covenant with, or does/can man play a role in entering into a covenant with God. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist, only people who claim to be atheist. Scripture tells His existence is made know to all through creation itself. Both as Creator and Judge. It was in denying His existence while at the same, acknowledge the power of something greater than themselves, that led to worshiping many gods. It was appealing to a seperate deity for all the aspects of life, through which mankind attempted to control these unseen forces that brought calamity or blessing (in their thinking), through worship and human sacrifice and evil rituals.

Which is one of the chief purposes in God creating a brand new nation and a brand new people on the road to redemption. In them He bore witness of Himself to all the other nations, of the one true and living God, who acts among men. The Creator and sovereign over all nations and peoples, and over all creation. Israel was a nation among nations that was completely different than any other. (An aside.) God bound Himself to them in a covenant relationship. In biblical covenants, it always God binding Himself to a people, and they to Him. Without God initiating a covenant, there can be no covenant. Man cannot initiate a covenant with God, nor can He choose whether or not to be in that covenant. He is not in it unless God brings him in.

And it may be said that Scripture shows strangers and foreigners joining Israel in worshiping the one true God. But that was a covenant that already existed, and it was a covenant of works, still required the same obedience and the sign of the covenant, met the same curses for disobedience, and it was not the covenant of redemption, but a step on the way to the fulfillment of the covenant of redemption. As well, we are not told the motives of those who came out of Egypt with Israel who were not of Jacob, or any who might have joined the journey. It may have contained not a speck of faith, but was motivated towards self. We do know that many of them began grumbling against Moses and their plight, stirred up much of the camp, and were destroyed along with the grumbling Israelites.

How does God save the person who ontologically says God does not exist?

The exact same way He saves anyone. It is no more difficult for Him to save one who denies His existence to be regenerated than it is for a person who believes in the existence of many gods or the existence of a God.

 

[Josheb]

The OP question is not about who is saved in relation to ontological views, but whether or not God always elects those to covenant with, or does/can man play a role in entering into a covenant with God.

There is n mention of "man" in the title's inquiry. I answered the question that was asked so I wonder why the matter is being belabored. Can you tell me why that is?

Also, there is no such thing as an atheist, only people who claim to be atheist.

The Bible states otherwise, and scripture was provided to prove the point.

Scripture tells His existence is made know to all through creation itself. Both as Creator and Judge.

Yes, and Scripture also tells us there are many who deny what can be known. Just because something is made known does not mean it is, in fact, known. God has made known, for example the information that would wholly unify your understanding of the universe..... but humanity simply has yet to understand it. What has been made known and what is known are two different conditions. Romans 1, for example, simply states God's power has been made known such that there is no excuse for not knowing it. It does not state all people do in fact know it. It states they deny what is knowable, not that they first know it and then deny it AND noneof it should be read to contradict what is plainly stated elsewhere, like "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

It was in denying His existence while at the same, acknowledge the power of something greater than themselves, that led to worshiping many gods.

That is true of the audience of which Paul wrote. There was once a time when everyone knew of God and, as I stated previously everyone else believed in gods of one sort or another, false gods, gods that don't actually exist. There are also those who say there is no God (or gods).

It was appealing to a separate deity for all the aspects of life...

This is getting further and further afield of the op's single inquiry.

And it may be said that Scripture shows strangers and foreigners joining Israel in worshiping the one true God. But that was a covenant that already existed...

Yep.

, and it was a covenant of works...

Nope.

The phrase "covenant of works" is a phrase and a concept coined extra-biblically, as a function of certain doctrinal points of view. It is not something found explicitly stated in scripture. God never calls His covenant a doctrine of works. We should not do so, either. Regardless of doctrinal perspective, the orthodox position in Christianity is that works do not save and that is uniformly held to be true in most Christian doctrines of soteriology. If a Jew thought otherwise that is a problem within his Judaism, not a function of Christianity. What runs through God's covenant relationship from beginning to end is "the righteous shall live by faith." The was supposed to be true of Adam and Eve, and it was true of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the house of Israel, David, James, John, Paul, Peter, Barnabas, Cornelius, Lydia and anyone and everyone else with whom God initiated His covenant. Salvation is by grace through faith for works. That is the covenant relationship.

...still required the same obedience and the sign of the covenant, met the same curses for disobedience, and it was not the covenant of redemption, but a step on the way to the fulfillment of the covenant of redemption.

Wait a minute. Let me make sure I understand that sentence correctly. Am I to read that to say God initiates two completely different covenants, one containing redemption and the other NOT containing redemption but instead that non-redemptive covenant is only step to another covenant in which redemption occurs or exists? If I've misunderstood those words then please clarify, and if I summarized it correctly then please provide scripture stating there are two covenants and one of them is a covenant with God but not a covenant of redemption. Doing so in a manner that does not conflict with Psalm 111:9 will be appreciated.

Psalm 111:9
He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant forever; Holy and awesome is His name.

.

As well, we are not told the motives of those who came out of Egypt with Israel who were not of Jacob, or any who might have joined the journey. It may have contained not a speck of faith, but was motivated towards self. We do know that many of them began grumbling against Moses and their plight, stirred up much of the camp, and were destroyed along with the grumbling Israelites.

Not seeing the relevance. If they were partakers of the covenant then they were partakers by God's hand, will, purpose, and work, not their own. If they were not partakers in God's monergistically initiated covenant, then they don't have anything to do with this op's singular inquiry.

The exact same way He saves anyone.

Exactly.

It is no more difficult for Him to save one who denies His existence to be regenerated than it is for a person who believes in the existence of many gods or the existence of a God.

That is true and correct but it misses the point previously made: Those denying the monergistic context of ALL covenant relationships must explain how an ontological non-believer becomes an ontological believer by his or her own might. Changes in intellectual knowledge, interest, and assent to NOT explain an ontological change or difference. The idea a sinfully dead and enslaved sinner changes his/her own mind because he heard something ew, understood it newly, and was able with the still sinfully dead and enslaved mind of flesh is non-existent in scripture and directly spoken in numerous ways in multiple places in scripture, beginning with Romans 8:7. The mind of flesh is hostile to God; it does not and cannot please God.

Presumably, a sinner changing his mind and deciding to believe God would be pleasing to God .

According to Romans 8:7 that kind of change cannot happen.


Therefore, two non-starters have been cited in the thread. One is the Deuteronomy 30 group that are given the opportunity to choose long after the covenant relationship has been established (one that was established without their knowledge, without their consent, without their even being asked). The other is the notion a sinner, a person who is explicitly stated to be dead in and enslaved by sin, using the faculties of their sinful flesh to elect themselves to God's covenant, or to induce (force) God to include them to elect them, to select them because they have believed with the mind and will of their sinful flesh.

A covenant relationship with God is ALWAYS by the kind of election whereby God selects or chooses who He includes in His covenant relationship. The covenant relationship sis not one initiated by, conditioned upon, or maintained by any work of a non-covenant member and any faculty of his/her sinful flesh.

 

[Arial]

There is n mention of "man" in the title's inquiry. I answered the question that was asked so I wonder why the matter is being belabored. Can you tell me why that is?

Because of this:

What that means is that when we use the Bible to understand salvation, or any of its constituent components (like election) we are always talking about examples where a theist is saved, not an atheist.

The OP is about covenant, not salvation. The matter was not being belabored.

Yes, and Scripture also tells us there are many who deny what can be known. Just because something is made known does not mean it is, in fact, known. God has made known, for example the information that would wholly unify your understanding of the universe..... but humanity simply has yet to understand it. What has been made known and what is known are two different conditions. Romans 1, for example, simply states God's power has been made known such that there is no excuse for not knowing it. It does not state all people do in fact know it. It states they deny what is knowable, not that they first know it and then deny it AND noneof it should be read to contradict what is plainly stated elsewhere, like "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

I see it differently.

20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

This is getting further and further afield of the op's single inquiry.

It is my OP and yours also went far afield. At least I didn't stray from covenant to salvation.

The phrase "covenant of works" is a phrase and a concept coined extra-biblically, as a function of certain doctrinal points of view.

Nevertheless---it is a covenant of works---the works of the Law, with blessings and curses attached to it. (Doing the works/not doing the works.) It is being contrasted to the New Covenant that is by faith apart from works. So there you have it. Paul repeatedly makes that contrast using that term, "the works of the law."

It is not something found explicitly stated in scripture.

Neither is the Trinity, and yet we fight tooth and nail with Scripture that declares a triune God and the deity of all three persons, to defend against a unitarian heresy.

Regardless of doctrinal perspective, the orthodox position in Christianity is that works do not save and that is uniformly held to be true in most Christian doctrines of soteriology. If a Jew thought otherwise that is a problem within his Judaism, not a function of Christianity. What runs through God's covenant relationship from beginning to end is "the righteous shall live by faith." The was supposed to be true of Adam and Eve, and it was true of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the house of Israel, David, James, John, Paul, Peter, Barnabas, Cornelius, Lydia and anyone and everyone else with whom God initiated His covenant. Salvation is by grace through faith for works.

That is the covenant relationship.

Nope. It is a covenant relationship, but it is not the only one.That is one aspect of the covenant of redemption. But there really was a real covenant with Israel based on works---law. Obedience---blessing. Disobedience---curse. The Mosaic covenant with Israel was not the covenant of redemption, but the road through which it traveled. But it was still a covenant relationship. It was simply a different type of covenant than the Covenant of Redemption. God was their God, provision was made for worship, and temporary covering for sin, so redemption could move forward to the realities it only shadowed. The Mosaic was a quid quo pro. The New is God binding Himself to a people with all the obligations of covenant promise keeping squarely on Him, even providing the regeneration and faith necessary for adoption into His House. He could not do that until the Son came as one of us and made proppitation for us on the cross, rose from the dead, defeating His enemy and ours---sin and death.

Wait a minute. Let me make sure I understand that sentence correctly. Am I to read that to say God initiates two completely different covenants, one containing redemption and the other NOT containing redemption but instead that non-redemptive covenant is only step to another covenant in which redemption occurs or exists? If I've misunderstood those words then please clarify, and if I summarized it correctly then please provide scripture stating there are two covenants and one of them is a covenant with God but not a covenant of redemption. Doing so in a manner that does not conflict with Psalm 111:9 will be appreciated.

The blood of bulls and rams never cleansed anyone of unrighteousness. The only thing that cleansed any under the Mosaic C was faith. The Mosaic covenant did not annul the covenant of faith with Abraham. They both existed at the same time and in the same place. But just as we are now still awaiting the consummation of the Covenant of Redemption, just so they were awaiting the inauguration of the New Covenant that would make the old obsolete. The arrival of the promised deliverer redeemer. One redemption was from slavery in Egypt and God with them.But it did not conquer sin and death, and was not intended to. It was a step towards the One who would come from their midst and conquer those enemies once and for all, and not just for Israel, but for the whole earth.

We often forget or never recognize in the first place, what exactly is being conquered, by who, and how. And yet it is the very core of the Covenant of Redemption.

Psalm 111:9
He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant forever; Holy and awesome is His name.

This of course has application to the psalmists day and circumstances. And obviously he did have faith. But it also in a prophetic sense, given the evidence we have in the NT, has application to the eternal covenant of redemption that began before the foundation of the world, and was stated in its historical context in Gen 3. "I will put enmity between your (the serpent) seed and the seed of the woman. He will crush your head and you will bruise His heel." That promise, that covenant declaration, never left one single page of the Bible nor any historical events in it. Not one.

Not seeing the relevance.

Sorry you are not able to.

Those denying the monergistic context of ALL covenant relationships must explain how an ontological non-believer becomes an ontological believer by his or her own might.

They never have and they never will. They try and try and try again, but none have been able to do so and they never will be able to do so, because it is a logical and theological impossibility.

Presumably, a sinner changing his mind and deciding to believe God would be pleasing to God .

Unfortunately for "them" deciding to believe something is not the same thing as actually believing it. It is just saying they believe it---likely not even knowing what "it" is. But the saying holds true, "I cannot believe what I don't believe."

Therefore, two non-starters have been cited in the thread. One is the Deuteronomy 30 group that are given the opportunity to choose long after the covenant relationship has been established (one that was established without their knowledge, without their consent, without their even being asked). The other is the notion a sinner, a person who is explicitly stated to be dead in and enslaved by sin, using the faculties of their sinful flesh to elect themselves to God's covenant, or to induce (force) God to include them to elect them, to select them because they have believed with the mind and will of their sinful flesh.

A covenant relationship with God is ALWAYS by the kind of election whereby God selects or chooses who He includes in His covenant relationship. The covenant relationship sis not one initiated by, conditioned upon, or maintained by any work of a non-covenant member and any faculty of his/her sinful flesh.

Agreed.

 

[Carbon]

Thoughts? Comments?

yes. A covenant relationship is always by election.

 

[Arial]

As far as the economy, or oionomia, or dispensation goes..... that is a wholly man-made invention, a gross addition to God's word

It is not an addition to God's word to say God administrates a covenant of Law (written legal code) differently than He administrates grace in the New Covenant. In fact the Covenant of Law was also a Covenant of grace. It was pure grace that He made a covenant of Law. But the Law covenant has a temporary mediator, and the other an eternal mediator, Christ, is through faith, and gives adoption into the kingdom as sons and daughters of the Father.

And it does not make a dispensation. Dispensationalists SAY it does, but the issue is the covenant, not the method of administration.

 

[Josheb]

It is not an addition to God's word to say God administrates a covenant of Law (written legal code) differently than He administrates grace in the New Covenant.

It is unless and until some scripture is provided stating God's administrates not-found-in-scripture phrases like "covenant of Law," and "covenant of grace." This has always been a weak point in classic Covenant theology (CT). There's no "covenant of Law" in scripture. There's no "covenant of grace in scripture. CT first asserts two different (scripturally non-existent) covenants and then argues a different administration for each. This is why Progressive Covenantalism is a much better alternative. The scripturally accurate understanding is the Law was a part of the only covenant existing in the whole of scripture, the covenant the God has with His Son. God's Law is an act of grace, just as much as Calvary was. The Law testifies about the foreknown Son and his sacrifice. The two are not mutually exclusive.

In fact the Covenant of Law

There is no such thing as a "Covenant of Law" in the Bible. It is a creation of post-scriptural, man-made doctrine. Theologically speaking, it's a useful concept, but it over-reaches, adding something to scripture that scripture itself does not state. The same is true of "Covenant of grace."

.....was also a Covenant of grace.

1) There's no such thing as a "Covenant of grace" in scripture, 2) the entire human existence (both before and after Genesis 3:7) is a function of God's grace, and 3) if the "Covenant of Law" is the "Covenant of grace"........ how then are they administrated differently? How can something that is the same be administrated differently? If the second sentence is true then the first sentence contradicts itself .

It was pure grace that He made a covenant of Law.

Aside from the fact there is no "Covenant of Law," I agree. The Law exists solely as a function of God's grace (for multiple reasons, serving multiple purposes) and it is monergistically so.

But the Law covenant has a temporary mediator, and the other an eternal mediator, Christ...

According to Galatians 3 the Law was handed to use through the mediator, which is Christ. The Law is not a different mediator, it is a gracious gift from the mediator.

Galatians 3:16-22
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

The Law came by the agency of [the] mediator. It is not a separate mediator. I can find eight references to Jesus as the mediator between God and man (in both the Old and the New Testaments) but I cannot find one verse stating the Law served as that mediator. It should be understood that just because something serves a mediating function does not mean it itself is a mediator.

, is through faith, and gives adoption into the kingdom as sons and daughters of the Father.

Yes, that is true and correct. Galatians 3:23 makes it very clear before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. The Law was a guardian, teacher tutor, or trainer (Gk.: "paidagogos"), not a mediator or intermediary (Gk.: "mesites").

And it does not make a dispensation.

I agree.

Dispensationalists SAY it does, but the issue is the covenant, not the method of administration.

I completely agree.




A covenant relationship with God is ALWAYS initiated by God, and God alone, acting solely due to His will, His purpose, and His might. A covenant with God occurs by the kind of election whereby God selects or chooses who He includes in His covenant relationship. The covenant relationship is not one initiated by, conditioned upon, or maintained by any work of a non-covenant (sinfully dead and enslaved) member and/or any faculty of his/her sinful flesh.

 

[Arial]

The scripturally accurate understanding is the Law was a part of the only covenant existing in the whole of scripture, the covenant the God has with His Son. God's Law is an act of grace, just as much as Calvary was. The Law testifies about the foreknown Son and his sacrifice. The two are not mutually exclusive

What is it you insist I am saying differently? And how many times must I say it and in how many different ways, before you understand and stop misrepresenting what I say? The Covenant of Redemption is one covenant from before the foundation of the world, working through the entire Bible and within covenant relationships. There is Law as legal written code. It is contained within a covenant relationship. It is serving the purpose of the Covenant of Redemption. The relationship in it is conditional, and primarily relates to possession of land, and the good providence of God. It involves a great deal of works on which the dependency rests. Therefore there is nothing unscriptural about referring to it as a covenant of works. It is not dividing the Covenant of Redemption, not annulling the Covenant of Redemption, it is not ignoring the Covenant of Redemption. It is simply identifying the Mosaic Covenant the type of covenant it is.

 

[Arial]

1) There's no such thing as a "Covenant of grace" in scripture, 2) the entire human existence (both before and after Genesis 3:7) is a function of God's grace, and 3) if the "Covenant of Law" is the "Covenant of grace"........ how then are they administrated differently? How can something that is the same be administrated differently? If the second sentence is true then the first sentence contradicts itself .

Have you read and understood your Bible? Have trouble with concepts? I ask because all I see is nitpicking and arguing over words.

I have never seen in Scripture, or read in any Reformed writings on covenant theology, anyone suggesting that any interaction of God with man is not grace. What you seem to ignore are the historical aspects of grace and the Covenant of Redemption---God acting in our history.

There is no point in going any further.

 

[Josheb]

What is it you insist I am saying differently? And how many times must I say it and in how many different ways, before you understand and stop misrepresenting what I say?

Have you read and understood your Bible? Have trouble with concepts? I ask because all I see is nitpicking and arguing over words.

Thank you for your time.