The Gospel of Salvation – part 1 October 27, 2010
Posted by Henry in Matters of the Faith.Tags: Calvinism, doctrine, faith, gospel of works, justification, justification by faith, salvation, The Gospel, theology
trackback
The following write-up is in response to an invitation from my brother in Christ Glasseyedave (from over at “The Gospel According to the Gospel“) to enter into a deeper discourse about the nature of our Gospel. I thought I would present my responses here as well since they demonstrate my belief concerning the Gospel, and which I hope may be of benefit to someone also. Anyone wishing to follow the discourse may also link to it here: Changing the Debate.
Hi Dave,
I welcome your offer for us to enter into deeper discourse concerning matters of the Gospel. I am honoured that you should approach me with respect to entering such a discussion with you and let me say that I do not think you are being arrogant at all. In my view if we cannot break “bread” in this way as brothers in Christ then what is the point? I too get frustrated when I share things whether on my blog or elsewhere and people shy away from it instead of engaging me – if even to say that I am wrong. We can have a civilised discussion even if we disagree but hopefully by having a discussion we can together come to the knowledge of truth. However, let us be patient towards one another and let us look at the issues portion by portion. If we try to eat too much “bread” all at once they we might not be able to swallow.
In your post there are a number of different but interconnected issues so the first issue that I would like us to discuss is on the issue of the Two Covenants. I referred to the two covenants as two different dispensations but you contend that they are not so. But let me warn you though that when I use the term “dispensations” it does not mean that I subscribe to “dispensational theology” as I have not studied this or had it preached to me. I therefore try not to approach the scriptures with bias (particularly from previous learning) but try to allow the letter and the Spirit to reveal to me what they will.
So why do I say that there are necessarily two dispensations on the road to Salvation? Well namely because we have Two Covenants (I do take cognisance of the fact that salvation and fellowship with God also existed before Abraham as per Enoch, Noah etc). Under the Old Covenant though, the Lord purposed to carve out a people for Himself who would be an ensign to the rest of mankind. This people, Israel, were to be the oracles of God and who were to set an example in righteousness for the nations round about them. Of course it would not be wrong to say that this was God’s sovereign will through His Grace. Israel of course were inheritors of God’s divine favour and hence why they were God’s chosen people. Under this Covenant however, Jesus had not yet gone to Calvary, the Holy Spirit had not been sent to “comfort” the church and there was no “regeneration” of the spirit of man (no born again experience). Under the Old Covenant therefore it was the Law (as opposed to the Spirit) that convicted man of sin. Repentance and remission were thus obtained through ritual sacrifices, and of course it was God’s Grace to forgive Israel of their sins through the “mechanisms” of these practices, which were mainly symbolic. These things were a shadow of the New Covenant which God promised in Abraham.
In reference to the New Covenant therefore God promised to make Abraham the father of many nations. This promise we know was fulfilled in Christ when the promise of the Spirit [by faith] came to the Gentiles. Man thus was no longer circumcised in the flesh after the manner of Abraham but rather received the circumcision of the heart. It goes without saying therefore that the righteousness of God which was imputed to Abraham is the same righteousness that we who had been cut off without a hope (the wild olive tree) have been grafted into. The difference however is that the righteousness which was instructed by the Law is now instructed by the Spirit through the redemptive work of Christ on the Cross. Under the Old Covenant Christ was promised and hence the Old pointed the way to the New – under the New Christ was given. What the Old could not accomplish therefore [and this is significant] the New is able to accomplish. I would like to highlight a couple of verses from Hebrews 9 here although the whole chapter is worth reading:
8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that COULD NOT make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; [Emphasis added]
We see from the verse that the Old Covenant with it’s ordinances and sacrifices could not make those who preformed them perfect. Similar in Heb 8:7-13 we learn that if the Old was faultless there would not be any need for the New and the Old which decays is now ready to vanish away.
To sum up therefore, I contend that there has been TWO dispensations on the road to salvation – the first we called the Old Covenant which has now vanished away and the second which we call the New Covenant that was confirmed in the blood of Jesus Christ. If there aren’t two dispensations then we are saying that the Jews can continue to live under the Old Covenant (not recognizing it’s no more) and be saved. I think this is where the “works of the Law” are held as distinctly separate from “salvation of Grace” to say that the works of the Law cannot save you but only the Grace of God, which does not require works.
[…] myself and Dave from over at “The Gospel According to the Gospel”. Link to Part 1 here. […]
Henry,
I responded to this post on my site, where I speak of the similarities of the two covenants and argue for a new understanding of what it really meant by Jesus when He says He has made a new covenant. To me the traditional differences are not differences at all but consistent through out scripture.
Same way of salvation (imputed righteousness)
Same hope of salvation
Law brings no righteousness of God
What they had was established in Christ just as what we have is established in Christ
The Old Testament saint’s gospel was not to seek righteousness through the Law, but through the promise which came 430 years earlier. The Law did not nullify the promise. The church leans towards the old saying, “They had the Law and we have grace.” Or we teach they had to obtain salvation through works, or they had a different way of salvation. I try to establish that none of this true.
I leave open the door to discus what it the real difference between the two covenants, without going into it.
I hope it is enjoyable to dig so deep and let us both sit back and ponder the wonders of our gospel.
glasseyedave
THE NEW COVENANT
Once we become members of Christ’s family, he does not let us go hungry, but feeds us with his own body and blood through the Eucharist.
In the Old Testament, as they prepared for their journey in the wilderness, God commanded his people to sacrifice a lamb and sprinkle its blood on their doorposts, so the Angel of Death would pass by their homes. Then they ate the lamb to seal their covenant with God.
This lamb prefigured Jesus. He is the real “Lamb of God,” who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).
Through Jesus we enter into a New Covenant with God (Luke 22:20), who protects us from eternal death. God’s Old Testament people ate the Passover lamb.
Now we must eat the Lamb that is the Eucharist. Jesus said, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you” (John 6:53).
At the Last Supper he took bread and wine and said, “Take and eat. This is my body . . . This is my blood which will be shed for you” (Mark 14:22–24).
In this way Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, the sacrificial meal Catholics consume at each Mass.
The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross occurred “once for all”; it cannot be repeated (Hebrews 9:28).
Christ does not “die again” during Mass, but the very same sacrifice that occurred on Calvary is made present on the altar.
That’s why the Mass is not “another” sacrifice, but a participation in the same, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Paul reminds us that the bread and the wine really become, by a miracle of God’s grace, the actual body and blood of Jesus: “Anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Corinthians 11:27–29).
After the consecration of the bread and wine, no bread or wine remains on the altar. Only Jesus himself, under the appearance of bread and wine, remains.
Michael Gormley,
Are you making a rebuttal or a statement of clarification, and is it directed at anyone particular comment?
Glasseyedave,
I agree with you on several points but it seems you missed the points I have tried to make. Indeed the plan of salvation is ONE plan not two. So here is where I agree:
The problem though is that Abraham’s faith was imputed to him for righteousness but as per the rest of Israel under the Old Covenant, where was their faith? Did Paul not write that faith was NOT YET GIVEN hence why the Law was a school-master to Israel (Rom 8)? Was “Christ crucified” preached to Israel or was Christ preached as the promised Messiah? The Law could not make men rigtheous but neither was faith yet given! Or is that not what the scriptures say?
Michael Gormley,
Thanks for stopping by. I fail however to see what the doctrine of transubstantiation has got to do with the topic in question. Are you implying that transubstantiation guarantees your eternal security in Christ?
Let me say first and foremost that transubstantiation is not supported anywhere in scripture. The bread and the wine are merely symbols of Christ body broken for us and His blood poured out for us. We should remember that what we call communion or the Eucharist today was actually the Feast of the Passover which Jesus was celebrating with the desciples at the time when he said that as often as they do it they should do it in rememberance of Him. He had not yet gone to the cross although it was very near to that time. So to say then that the desciples were eating the literal body and drinking the literal blood of Christ is fallacy. Scripture did not say that if we partake of the Eucharist we would be saved. Scripture says however to Believe on the Lord Jesus and though shalt be SAVED.
HI all. Been reading a few of these blogs.
Romans tells us how Israel stumbled:
Rom. 9: 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it (the law of righteousness ) by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
They stumbled over Christ! (“Him”) The law of righteousness, then, as Abraham, would not be the works of the law, but the law of Christ. (they stumbled over “Him”, not just the Law.
Hi Betty,
Thanks for stopping by. Indeed Israel “stumbled over Christ” as you put it. But we need to remember two things. Firstly, it was “necessary” for them to reject Christ and His Gospel so that salvation could come to those of us who were outside of the commonwealth of Israel (Rom 11:11-16). Secondly, not all Israel rejected the Gospel – because God purposed to carve out a remnant of Israel unto Himself through the election of Grace (Rom 11:1-7).
God Bess