Romans and the New Covenant

[steve]

As I often bring up, we frequently limit our concerns to the question of what one must do to be "saved" (in the sense of avoiding hell), rather than what it means to be "saved" (in the sense of reclaimed by God to live as He intended and as pleases Him).

I believe that many will escape hell through their faith who never were "saved" in the second sense. It is the second that primarily would induce someone to become a proselyte to Judaism in the Old Testament or a part of the Church in the New Testament.

If a Gentile in Old Testament times had a saving faith in God, and was aware of God's Law given to Israel, that Gentile would wish to keep that law because the desire to please God is the very evidence that a saving faith resides in his heart. If he never should learn of God's Law, the presence of such a faith might well save him (in the first sense of that word), but his ignorance of God's standards would limit his ability to conform to God's desires for his life. This would be very unfortunate for both God and for the man, even if the man eventually went to heaven after death. His life was mostly wasted—or at least failed to please God in every way that it could have were he to know the ways of God.

I believe the same is true with the Gospel. Perhaps a person can be saved (in the first sense) without having heard of Christ, but without hearing and submitting to Christ's lordship, that man cannot really know God's purpose for his life, nor conform to it. Therefore, God and the man both lose out again. The man, because his ignorance deprives him of the resources of the Gospel, by which he could have been delivered from a life of sin and the control of demons, and God, because He was deprived of the man's service and of the glory that He hoped to receive from the man's life as a disciple (John 15:8).

[mattrose]

I think we sometimes confuse the corporate election of Israel in the Old Covenant with the issue of individual salvation. Individuals, inside or outside of Israel, could be 'saved' in ancient times by faith in God (just as we are). To be part of Israel was a different matter than this. It was election to the vocation of being God's representative entity to the world. Israel failed at this vocation as a whole. Jesus succeeded in the original vocation of being God's representative. Now, all who are attached to Jesus (not Israel), are elected to that vocation too.

The Old Covenant was marked by Israel as the elect vessel for this vocation
The New Testament is marked by Jesus as the elect vessel for this vocation

They had to be in the body of Israel to be part of this vocation
We have to be in the body of Christ to be part of this vocation

Individual salvation is not unrelated, but it is a different issue

[darinhouston]

I like that, Matt.

So, would you say that each (body of Israel and body of Christ) are mixed multitudes with the body of Christ seen today as the visible church (with saved and unsaved?) I think sometimes I look for nice tidy categories where they don't exist, but that doesn't keep me from trying.

[look2jesus]

Hello darinhouston,

I won't answer for Matt, but it seems to me that the answer is found in Jeremiah 31, where he prophesies of the New Covenant. God says, in that place, that "they will all know me". Regarding the Old Covenant, it seems that we could easily infer that, within the nation of Israel, to whom that covenant was made, there were those that knew God and those that didn't know God, thus the distinction between the nation of Israel and the believing remnant within the nation. Regarding the New Covenant that Jesus established, this is entered into by faith, by which we are engrafted into the body of Christ; when God says, "they will all know me" this would seem to preclude any that didn't know him from having a part in the New Covenant and, therefore, in the body of Christ. Those are the thoughts that came to my mind.

l2j

[darinhouston]

Hello darinhouston,

I won't answer for Matt, but it seems to me that the answer is found in Jeremiah 31, where he prophesies of the New Covenant. God says, in that place, that "they will all know me". Regarding the Old Covenant, it seems that we could easily infer that, within the nation of Israel, to whom that covenant was made, there were those that knew God and those that didn't know God, thus the distinction between the nation of Israel and the believing remnant within the nation. Regarding the New Covenant that Jesus established, this is entered into by faith, by which we are engrafted into the body of Christ; when God says, "they will all know me" this would seem to preclude any that didn't know him from having a part in the New Covenant and, therefore, in the body of Christ. Those are the thoughts that came to my mind.

l2j

I think that's right, but this is what I hear those of the "New Covenant Theology" persuasion saying (largely Presbyterians, or other strongly "Reformed" paedobaptists it seems). I believe this supports their views on baptism being the "new circumcision" into "God's People" (visibly and in some ways with mere potentiality to be reborn/saved/know God in the true sense) and why they baptize family members who may not be saved (particularly infants or other youth).

[look2jesus]

I get your point Darin. I hadn't considered that you might have had those "in covenant", yet not yet saved, in mind. Sorry 'bout that.

l2j