Recently read The Christ of the Covenants and even O. Palmer Robertson says (after quoting Calvin) "nothing under the old covenant had the effectiveness necessary actually to reconcile the sinner to God. Only in anticipation of the finished work of Christ could an act of heart-renewal be performed under the provisions of the old covenant...the shadowy form of the old covenant administration participated in the powerful realities of the new covenant substance." p. 292 & 293
@@leecooper6411 I wouldn't use the words "participated in" as much as I would use the words "pointed to". The old covenant was not a salvific one. It could only confer blessings and curses.
I find 1689 Federalism to be the most consistent view and my point is that Robertson compromises his own position with that quote. How can the OC be one with the new if, by his own admission, the old is the shadow and the new is the substance? As Renihan puts it, type and antitype. So, yes I agree that the OC cannot provide eternal salvation in and of itself, only the NC can, which is made available through faith and through the OC types. OT saints were saved through the OC, but not by the OC, which is the 1689 Federalism view.
@@ReformedRookie yes. I wasn’t watching...I was listening in my car and the typing on the keyboard and the bell were very distracting to this serious conversation.
It's easy until they waffle on passages where the old is considered obsolete. They don't hold consistently to their position, and "substance" is a waffle word.
they continually say that the old and new covenants are one covenant with two administrations. However, the scriptures clearly say they are TWO different covenants.
Abraham is called "the hebrew" (Gen 14:13), so is Israel as the hebrews. I think you need not to differentiate between those two. Israel is the promised line of Abrahams offspring, you can identify them with him and also the other way around.
Thanks for the observation. Abram is the son of Eber, and therefore a Hebrew. However, he is not Israel and actually a Gentile since Israel didn't even exist for another two generations.
Thanks for having me on Anthony!
It was my pleasure!
Recently read The Christ of the Covenants and even O. Palmer Robertson says (after quoting Calvin) "nothing under the old covenant had the effectiveness necessary actually to reconcile the sinner to God. Only in anticipation of the finished work of Christ could an act of heart-renewal be performed under the provisions of the old covenant...the shadowy form of the old covenant administration participated in the powerful realities of the new covenant substance."
p. 292 & 293
@@leecooper6411 I wouldn't use the words "participated in" as much as I would use the words "pointed to". The old covenant was not a salvific one. It could only confer blessings and curses.
I find 1689 Federalism to be the most consistent view and my point is that Robertson compromises his own position with that quote. How can the OC be one with the new if, by his own admission, the old is the shadow and the new is the substance? As Renihan puts it, type and antitype. So, yes I agree that the OC cannot provide eternal salvation in and of itself, only the NC can, which is made available through faith and through the OC types. OT saints were saved through the OC, but not by the OC, which is the 1689 Federalism view.
Excellent episode!
thank you brother!
Love you Pastor, thank you for the content!
-Gio
Praise God! My pleasure brother
I am glad to have found this!
I love you guys! Thanks for this video! It filled me with joy
Praise God!
Good conversation. I could do without the sound effects.
thanks- when you mention the sound effects, do you mean the subscribe bell?
@@ReformedRookie yes. I wasn’t watching...I was listening in my car and the typing on the keyboard and the bell were very distracting to this serious conversation.
@@churchhymnsandpsalms thanks for the feedback- I will revise this for future discussions.
I’m struggling so hard to understand this… been a Reformed Baptist and find the Westminster easy to follow as far as a covenant theology goes.
It's easy until they waffle on passages where the old is considered obsolete. They don't hold consistently to their position, and "substance" is a waffle word.
@@shawngillogly6873Can you give me a specific example? Trying to understand.
they continually say that the old and new covenants are one covenant with two administrations. However, the scriptures clearly say they are TWO different covenants.
If Irresistible Grace is True, it doesn't matter whether arrogantly or snobby like the presentation may be. If God is calling then they are coming.
Abraham is called "the hebrew" (Gen 14:13), so is Israel as the hebrews. I think you need not to differentiate between those two. Israel is the promised line of Abrahams offspring, you can identify them with him and also the other way around.
Thanks for the observation. Abram is the son of Eber, and therefore a Hebrew. However, he is not Israel and actually a Gentile since Israel didn't even exist for another two generations.
The woman who had been bleeding for 12 years put her total trust in Christ knowing if she just touched his cloak she would be healed. Was she saved?