The Covenant Context of Salvation

[Red Baker]

So, I genuinely applaud the effort but given the fact Jacob's word exists only in the context of an already existing covenant and our knowledge he was a covenant member of the Christological covenant God initiated with his grandfather, the Gen. 28 example does not meet the specified criteria. Give it another try (or if there are no such citations available then acknowledge that).

After I posted and thought more on this, I considered Jacob's words more of a vow. So, we are on the same page.

Can you cite a covenant with God in the Bible that God did not initiate? Or, to put the same question in other words, is there a covenant with God that God did not, Himself, initiate? Has any human in the Bible ever initiated or instigated a covenant with God?

My answer to those questions after more serous consideration, is that I cannot, and no there is not covenant that God did not first initiate.

 

[praise_yeshua]

After I posted and thought more on this, I considered Jacob's words more of a vow. So, we are on the same page.

My answer to those questions after more serous consideration, is that I cannot, and no there is not covenant that God did not first initiate.

Interesting how you appeal to a vow as being essential to any definition of a covenant and then ignore the fact that Hannah made a vow that was not solicited by God.

Do you hold the position that Hannah was under the covenant of Abraham? If you do, then I'd like for you or someone here to establish such. Don't assume it. Establish it. Prove it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The article you read is precisely to explain how those people were saved without having a relationship with GOD dependant on what they knew, understood or confessed about the future Messiah.

The Ninevites are a good example of people saved without the need of knowing, understanding or confessing a future sacrifice of Jesus, and therefore, without having a “covenant relationship in Jesus”
That was precisely the point of Jesus when presenting the Ninevites as an example.
“On the day of judgment the inhabitants of Nineveh will rise up with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.”

Now, if you believe that Jesus saved them despite they were unaware of it, I can only say Amen, my brother. Let’s proceed.

I know you followed me recently but you have said that you have me on ignore. Either way, I'll say this because you're making an argument relative to those in Nineveh.

The descendents of Ishmael were in Nineveh. This is one of the reasons why Jonah was sent to Nineveh. Nineveh would have never been forgiven if it hadn't been for Jonah.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Can you cite a covenant with God in the Bible that God did not initiate? Or, to put the same question in other words, is there a covenant with God that God did not, Himself, initiate? Has any human in the Bible ever initiated or instigated a covenant with God?

No.
God has been the initiator of every covenant between God and man.

 

[civic]

No.
God has been the initiator of every covenant between God and man.

Let me help you since the One who made the covenant in the OT is the same One who dies and shed His own blood for the New Covenant.

Hebrews 9
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.16In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18;This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20;He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22;In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Who made the Covenant ?

The New Covenant cannot take place while the One who made it is living.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JoshebB]

I do agree with your point 2... that Hannah made that vow inside the already existing covenant between God and Abraham.

Great. Post accordingly.

In regard to point 1, though, I have a comment:

Salvation, in the OT (and particularly before the exile) was not understood necessarily the salvation of our soul from the slavery of sin.

And that is the fundamental mistake you've made throughout this entire thread. You have assumed their understanding is relevant. It is not. Because of that one misguided assumption everything you've posted has also been misguided. I have repeatedly told you the newer revelation explains the older revelation. It's not a difficult concept to grasp so very time you ignore it you justify my correction. I know you know it because I've said it often. I know you know it and I know you know I know you know it. You are, therefore, without excuse whenever you ignore that fact and post as if that fact is not true.

The ignorance of the Old Testament peoples....... is one of the many sins from which salvation was provided!!!!!!!

There is no person and no other name besides that of Jesus by which anyone can be saved.

It does not matter when that revealed. The moment it was revealed it defined everything the revelation from God says about salvation whether that revelation be found in the Old or New Testaments. If the Ninevites were saved from sin (and not merely from some temporal judgment) then the only person, the only name, by which they could have been saved is that of Jesus. ALL the prophets testified about Jesus. That would include Jonah. That wasn't revealed until Jesus showed up but the timing of that revealing does not change the facts of salvation.

Luke 24:44-45
Now he said to them, "These are hy words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about he in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures...

John 5:39-40
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about me; and you are unwilling to come to me so that you may have life.

Acts 3:24
And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken from Samuel and his successors onward, have also announced these days.

1 Peter 1:10-12, 17-21
As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look............... If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.


Their lack of understanding the facts does not change the facts. In point of fact, much of the Old Testament is a record of those people's willful refusal to understand and believe what was revealed.

 

[JoshebB]

No.
God has been the initiator of every covenant between God and man.

I agree.

Next questions:
I'd like to examine some of the details of God initiating His covenant. When initiating His (salvific, Christological) covenant....

1. God first chooses some individual or some group as a participant in His covenant. Yes? Do I have that correct?
2. God then calls that person or some group as a participant in His covenant. Yes? Do I have that correct? Let me further clarify that particular question because it's written exactly as I mean to ask it. I did not ask whether or not God called the person/group to be a participant. Perhaps that is correct but what I am asking is about when God called that person/group did He do so treating that person as a covenant participant, as if the matter had already been decided prior to His calling him/her/them? Yes? No?

.

 

[JoshebB]

Vows are part of covenants.

That is correct. Vows are part of covenants. That means vows are not covenants. The two are not identical or synonymous. Covenants are much bigger, more encompassing than they vows they contain. A vow may a constituent element of a covenant, but a vow is not the whole of the covenant. What is true of one part may not be true of the whole (or vice versa). Be careful not to commit a construction error.


No goalposts were moved. What I have done is take each poster's answer(s) and moved the conversation forward with a question directly related to and dependent upon their answer.

 

[JoshebB]

The article you read is precisely to explain how those people were saved without having a relationship with GOD dependant on what they knew, understood or confessed about the future Messiah.

Think that through.

People were saved despite not knowing or understanding the future Messiah. Yet that very same article explicitly states no one is saved apart from Jesus. In other words, those people were, in fact, saved through Christ, even though they may not have understood what that meant. Their ignorance is irrelevant and when you try to make their ignorance relevant then you're showing your own lack of understanding of 1) the fact no one is saved apart from Christ, 2) how their ignorance is irrelevant, and 3) the article that you cited that explains it.

 

[JoshebB]

After I posted and thought more on this, I considered Jacob's words more of a vow. So, we are on the same page.

My answer to those questions after more serous consideration, is that I cannot, and no there is not covenant that God did not first initiate.

I agree and appreciate the succinct answer.

Next questions: I'd like to examine some of the details of God initiating His covenant. When initiating His (salvific, Christological) covenant....

1. God first chooses some individual or some group as a participant in His covenant. Yes? Do I have that correct?
2. God then calls that person or some group as a participant in His covenant. Yes? Do I have that correct? Let me further clarify that particular question because it's written exactly as I mean to ask it. I did not ask whether or not God called the person/group to be a participant. Perhaps that is correct but what I am asking is about when God called that person/group did He do so treating that person as a covenant participant, as if the matter had already been decided prior to His calling him/her/them? Yes? No?

.

 

[JoshebB]

Their lack of understanding the facts does not change the facts. In point of fact, much of the Old Testament is a record of those people's willful refusal to understand and believe what was revealed.

The Old and the New Testaments also contain a record of those who believed without complete comprehension or apprehension.

Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

Noah was an heir of righteousness according to faith (not works). Paul expounds on this at length in his epistolary.

Hebrews 11:8-10
By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Abraham, the man whose vision showed God pledging fealty to God, was looking forward to a city built by God. Paul wrote about that, too.

2 Corinthians 5:1
For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

The author of Hebrews made it abundantly clear that every single individual listed in his commentary - whether Hebrew or not - was made complete in those to whom God had spoken about His Son.

Hebrews 11:39-40
And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.


.

 

[Red Baker]

God first chooses some individual or some group as a participant in His covenant. Yes? Do I have that correct?

Yes

God then calls that person or some group as a participant in His covenant. Yes? Do I have that correct? Let me further clarify that particular question because it's written exactly as I mean to ask it. I did not ask whether or not God called the person/group to be a participant. Perhaps that is correct but what I am asking is about when God called that person/group did He do so treating that person as a covenant participant, as if the matter had already been decided prior to His calling him/her/them? Yes? No?

.

Clearly, as a matter which already been decided by God's purpose, promises, and oath, of which covenant he initiated.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Let me help you since the One who made the covenant in the OT is the same One who dies and shed His own blood for the New Covenant.

Hebrews 9
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.16In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18;This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20;He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22;In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Who made the Covenant ?

The New Covenant cannot take place while the One who made it is living.

hope this helps !!!

Hi Civic

The author of Hebrews is going from the metaphor of a covenant to the metaphor of a will (verse 16).
In the case of a will, the person who made the will must die first. Not in the case of a covenant.

If I have understood you correctly, you believe that the God of Israel was Jesus Christ.
Although theologically we disagree on this, to me such disagreement is trivial for the topic in question, as Christ would not lead us to a covenant which is contrary to the will of God. So, I would not dispute you about who made the covenant in this thread, as there are already many that cover that subject.

What is more relevant to me is this:

If you believe that Jesus was the Author of the Old Covenant... if Jesus was YHWH, or the Angel of YHWH, that's fine my brother... as long as you don't expect from people of that time to have known, understood, or confessed that. That's my only contention, my friend.

In other words: I would not dispute Evangelical leaders preaching that Jesus saved the Inuit people living in the time of the Reform. I would have a problem, and a big one, with Evangelical leaders preaching that those Inuit had to know, understand or confess that Jesus was saving them... I would have a problem with Calvinist leaders claiming that God sent Luther to the Germans, but nobody to the Inuit, letting them die in their sins, because they were not "the elected" and had been created as "vessels of his wrath".

An Inuit mother may have no particular interest, time, context, analytic abilities or mind openness to understand and adhere to the concepts of the covenants that are reviewed here. God may have decided not to attract her to a formal Christian church during her life on this earth... God may have had different plans for her within her community and circumstance. But she can still be reached by the grace of God, so that the Holy Spirit makes her act and bear fruits as if she had understood those covenants.

 

[JoshebB]

Yes

Clearly, as a matter which already been decided by God's purpose, promises, and oath, of which covenant he initiated.

Absolutely.

So let me summarize our consensus with scripture. In the context of salvation.....

1. Salvation occurs exclusively within a covenant with Christ.
2. There is no salvation available outside of a covenant relationship with God through His Son, Jesus.
3. All the covenants with God in scripture are initiated by God.
4. God chooses the covenant participant(s).
5. God calls the participant He has chosen as a participant.

And although I do not believe I asked or have yet stipulated your comment I will affirm God's decisions pertaining specifically to His choosing and calling the covenant participants is decided based upon His purpose, promises, and oath. However, the matter of his promises and oath begs the question because His purpose precedes the initiation of the covenant whereas the promises and oaths follow after the covenant has been initiated and God has chosen and called the covenant participants. Yes?

Next questions:

• Can you think of any individual or group that God asked to be a participant before God initiated His covenant with that person or group?
• Can you think of any individual or group that God asked to be chosen before God chose that person or group?
• Can you think of any individual or group that God asked to be called before God called that person or group?

For example: Is there any record of God asking Abram if Abram wanted to be in a salvific covenant with God before God initiated the covenant? Is the any record of God ever going to Abram and asking Abraham to leave Ur before He commanded Abram to do so? That's just an example. God had already chosen Abram as a covenant participant when He commanded Abram to leave. He'd already called Abram to leave Ur as a future participant in the covenant relationship when He made that command.

 

[civic]

Hi Civic

The author of Hebrews is going from the metaphor of a covenant to the metaphor of a will (verse 16).
In the case of a will, the person who made the will must die first. Not in the case of a covenant.

If I have understood you correctly, you believe that the God of Israel was Jesus Christ.
Although theologically we disagree on this, to me such disagreement is trivial for the topic in question, as Christ would not lead us to a covenant which is contrary to the will of God. So, I would not dispute you about who made the covenant in this thread, as there are already many that cover that subject.

What is more relevant to me is this:

If you believe that Jesus was the Author of the Old Covenant... if Jesus was YHWH, or the Angel of YHWH, that's fine my brother... as long as you don't expect from people of that time to have known, understood, or confessed that. That's my only contention, my friend.

In other words: I would not dispute Evangelical leaders preaching that Jesus saved the Inuit people living in the time of the Reform. I would have a problem, and a big one, with Evangelical leaders preaching that those Inuit had to know, understand or confess that Jesus was saving them... I would have a problem with Calvinist leaders claiming that God sent Luther to the Germans, but nobody to the Inuit, letting them die in their sins, because they were not "the elected" and had been created as "vessels of his wrath".

An Inuit mother may have no particular interest, time, context, analytic abilities or mind openness to understand and adhere to the concepts of the covenants that are reviewed here. God may have decided not to attract her to a formal Christian church during her life on this earth... God may have had different plans for her within her community and circumstance. But she can still be reached by the grace of God, so that the Holy Spirit makes her act and bear fruits as if she had understood those covenants.


View attachment 1333

No it’s not a “ metaphor “ it’s literal. He is the covenant maker / author and the same one who died shedding His literal blood for sin. A literal death via His blood for a literal covenant He made and is the guarantor.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I agree.

Next questions:
I'd like to examine some of the details of God initiating His covenant. When initiating His (salvific, Christological) covenant....

1. God first chooses some individual or some group as a participant in His covenant. Yes? Do I have that correct?

Yes, but I would like to make a comment:
The group could be as big as all mankind (the case of Noah) or have blurry borders (genetic lineage in a modern world where almost everyone has mixed genetic origins).

1. God then calls that person or some group as a participant in His covenant. Yes? Do I have that correct? Let me further clarify that particular question because it's written exactly as I mean to ask it. I did not ask whether or not God called the person/group to be a participant. Perhaps that is correct but what I am asking is about when God called that person/group did He do so treating that person as a covenant participant, as if the matter had already been decided prior to His calling him/her/them? Yes? No?

Yes.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

No it’s not a “ metaphor “ it’s literal. He is the covenant maker / author and the same one who died shedding His literal blood for sin. A literal death via His blood for a literal covenant He made and is the guarantor.

I'm talking about the terms "will", "covenant", etc.
They are legal terms that are easy for us to understand.
I'm saying that the author of Hebrews was using now a different figure of language... "will".
The epistle of Hebrews is full of metaphors. "Will" is one of them.

Remember, civic: metaphors are not "lies". Metaphors are didactic tools God uses to reveal Himself to men.
You use them constantly in your daily language and when teaching to children.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Think that through.

People were saved despite not knowing or understanding the future Messiah. Yet that very same article explicitly states no one is saved apart from Jesus. In other words, those people were, in fact, saved through Christ, even though they may not have understood what that meant. Their ignorance is irrelevant

I agree. We are on the same page here.

and when you try to make their ignorance relevant

I was trying to make their ignorance relevant not because of you, my brother, but because other people in the Forum and other Internet Forums who make it the most relevant thing in soteriology: friends who insist in that man has to know/understand/confess, particularly while on this earth.

For those people, to be saved by Christ or in Christ means to be saved knowing things about Christ.
These people change salvation by grace to a salvation by doctrinal orthodoxy.
I don't minimize doctrinal orthodoxy... I just emphasize it is not a requirement to salvation, since that would be neither biblical nor rational nor ethical.

As I said in one of my posts, please accept my apologies if I was making a strawman here.

*NOTE: ​

For Calvin, the Inuit of his time would have been created for destruction, because it would have been obvious that they didn't know/understand/confess the deity of Jesus, his blood atonement and resurrection. I don't remember what Luther thought. ​

I just know, by reading the Catholic catechism, that Catholics hold that God's salvific grace can work in people from all times and religions through "mysterious" ways, without taking away the centrality of Jesus in salvation. If I remember correctly, the cathecism even leaves that problem to theologians for future resolution. Meaning something like "We believe God's grace reach many of them, although we cannot explain how. Explaining how is not the business of the common believer."​

​

Some modern theologians have come with a thing call "anonymous Christians" (people who follow Jesus without knowing it). Within that framework Jesus keeps being the only Way to the Father. It is just that the Holy Spirit takes people through that Way without they knowing they are walking that Way. ​

 

[Dizerner]

friends who insist in that man has to know/understand/confess, particularly while on this earth.

For those people, to be saved by Christ or in Christ means to be saved knowing things about Christ.
These people change salvation by grace to a salvation by doctrinal orthodoxy.
I don't minimize doctrinal orthodoxy... I just emphasize it is not a requirement to salvation, since that would be neither biblical nor rational nor ethical.

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?
And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?
And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14 NKJ)

These are rhetorical questions expecting the answer, "They cannot."

Paul, unlike you, clearly thought people had to learn and be taught about Jesus to believe in him and be saved.

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Rom. 10:17 NKJ)

Paul, unlike you, clearly thought one must hear the word of God to have faith come.

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:9-10 NKJ)

Paul, unlike you, clearly believes there are things one must know and believe about Jesus to be saved.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?
And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?
And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14 NKJ)

These are rhetorical questions expecting the answer, "They cannot."

Paul, unlike you, clearly thought people had to learn and be taught about Jesus to believe in him and be saved.

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Rom. 10:17 NKJ)

Paul, unlike you, clearly thought one must hear the word of God to have faith come.

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:9-10 NKJ)

Paul, unlike you, clearly believes there are things one must know and believe about Jesus to be saved.

How could Paul sleep at night knowing that millions of people in Hispania, Persia, Germania or Britania had not heard the preaching of any apostle? (plus many from cities within the regions he had already visited)
I can think in two probable explanations:

OPTION 1. Paul could sleep at night because he believed that people in those regions were going to be judged according to what God had revealed to them through other means... starting with their own conscience, that let them tell good from evil. So, good Pagans would go to paradise and meet Jesus there, and wicked Pagans would not.

OPTION 2. Paul could sleep at night because he believed that people living in those regions had been created for destruction, so it was OK if he or any other disciple didn't manage to preach to them. They were doomed to roast in hell anyway.

Option 1 is held by most Christians I have met, including my beloved mother and myself... including all Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons I knew. To my knowledge, Anglicans, Orthodox, Ethiopian Coptic, Quakers, Universalists and JWs also believe in Option 1.
Option 2 is held by a minority of Christians. Are you one of them, Dizerner?