Response to Charles Shank's Comment, that a Believer's Consent is Not Necessary to Be a Part of the New Covenenat.

Response to Charles Shank's Comment,

that a Believer's Consent is Not Necessary to Be a Part of the New Covenant.

The Denial of the Necessity of Believer Response  

Charles, you said, "God has made clear to me that it is not our agreement (or signing) which brings us into covenant with Him, but the very fact that we are."  I guess that's the conclusion both a Calvinist or a Universalist would come to.  Unfortunately it nails the coffin shut on free will, faith, response to the gospel, and Christlike living.  Under Calvinism and Universalism anything pertaining to man's response is totally irrelevant.

But covenants are never one way.  Relationship is not one directional.  If it were one directional then Adam should never have lost his relationship with God, Cain should have been accepted regardless of his lifestyle,  Peter should not have told his hearers to repent and Paul should never have told them to live by the Spirit.  None of those things would matter because you believe they are already (or, soon to be, in the case of pre-Christ) in a covenant relationship because of what Christ did without any reciprocal response.  You've come to a "grace only" position and have totally eliminated the necessity of faith from the religion.

I guess when Jesus said to count the cost (Luke 14:25-29) he was dead wrong and all conditional statements in the Bible should be ignored when explaining scripture.  You agreed with me that that shouldn't be done but you put yourself in a situation where that becomes necessary.

Charles your idea of what a covenant is, is far from any standard definition of covenant.  You deny covenants have any free will parties or terms.  The only thing left is one directional promises.  In actuality that is a denial of covenant altogether.  You believe no covenant exists only God's unilateral action.

Online Definition of Covenant

When I say the word "covenant" and you say the word "covenant" we mean entirely different things.  That's why we can't agree on anything.  So how should covenant be defined?  Here are the some web definitions of the word "covenant" found by a simple search.

* A signed written agreement between two or more parties (nations) to perform some action.

* (Bible) An agreement between God and his people in which God makes certain promises and requires certain behavior from them in return.

* An agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified.

* (Bible) The conditional promises made to humanity by god, as revealed in Scripture.

* (Bible) The agreement between God and the ancient Israelites, in which God promised to protect them if they kept His law and were faithful to Him.

Notice the repeated use of words "two or more parties", "requires certain behavior in return", "conditional", "kept His law and were faithful." in these definitions.  Parties and Terms are inherent in any covenant, they cannot be dismissed.

Legal Definition of Covenant

Now let's take a look at the legal definition of covenant from the Lectric Law Library's Lexicon.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c323.htm

The general requisites (of a covenant) are; 1st. Proper parties. 2d. Words of agreement. 3d A legal purpose. 4th. A proper form.

- 1st. The parties must be such as by law can enter into a contract. If either for want of understanding, as in the case of an idiot or lunatic; or in the case of an infant, where the contract is not for his benefit; or where there is understanding, but owing to certain causes, as coverture, in the case of a married woman, or duress, in every case, the parties are not competent, they cannot bind themselves.

- 2d. There must be an agreement. The assent or consent must be mutual for the agreement would be incomplete if either party withheld his assent to any of its terms. The assent of the parties to a contract necessarily supposes a free, fair, serious exercise of the reasoning faculty. Now, if from any cause, this free assent be not given, the contract is not binding.

- 3d. A covenant against any positive law or public policy, is, generally speaking, void. An example of the first is a covenant by one man that he will rob another; and of the last, a covenant by a merchant or tradesman that he will not follow his occupation or calling. This, if it be unlimited, is absolutely void, but if the covenant be that he shall not pursue his business in a particular place, such as that he will not trade in the city of Philadelphia, the covenant is no longer against public policy.

- 4th. To make a covenant it must, according to the definition above given, be by deed or under seal. No particular form of words is necessary to make a covenant, but any words which manifest the intention of the parties, in respect to the subject matter of the contract, are sufficient.

In the 1st general requisite, "The parties must be such as by law can enter into a contract."  The covenant can stipulate who is eligible.  For instance the parties of the Old Covenant are God and the blood descendants of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.  Gentiles could never be a part of the Old Covenant.  The parties were limited.  New Covenant parties are not limited by race but are limited by man's choice to believe and trust in Christ. (Romans 1:16)  It is not a covenant like the Adamic covenant where the parties are God and all descendants of Adam.  The gospel limits the parties to those who believe. (John 3:16-18)

Notice also that the 1st general requisite states the party must "understand" what they are getting into.  Thus in the New Covenant a hearing and understanding of the gospel is prerequisite.  If there is no hearing or understanding then "they cannot bind themselves" to the covenant. (Romans 10:14)  That's why there is so much scriptural emphasis on gospel and getting the gospel into the ears of everyone on the face of the earth. (Mark 16:15) It also can't be by "duress".  Nobody can be forced into a covenant.  The New Covenant is no different, free will is understood. 

In the 2nd general requisite, "The assent or consent must be mutual for the agreement would be incomplete if either party withheld his assent to any of its terms."  The terms of the covenant are Christlikeness (Colossians 1:28-29); to Love God (and our neighbor as ourselves) (Colossians 3:12-14), to have Christ's ethic (Galatians 5:16-25) and to participate in the ministry of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 3:6, 5:17-21) "Assent to the terms" are prerequisite for admittance into the covenant.  The covenant cannot be ratified or be made binding without the believers consent to follow Christ; to make him their Lord. 

Repentance is the changing of one's attitudes and behavior.  A person walking down the street in one direction may stop and have regret.  He may realize he is going the wrong way, but unless he turns around and begins to walk in the proper direction we cannot say he has repented.  If he continues in the same direction, he has shown regret but no repentance.  Thus mere regret for sin is not repentance.  Repentance occurs when one realizes his sinful lifestyle is wrong and he chooses to live like Christ.  He changes his attitudes and behavior.  Thus repentance is an "assent to the terms" of the New Covenant; to begin living like Christ.

Also the 2nd requisite says, "The assent of the parties to a contract necessarily supposes a free, fair, serious exercise of the reasoning faculty.  Now, if from any cause, this free assent be not given, the contract is not binding."  Free will is an inherent aspect of covenant.  In the New Covenant the free will acceptance of Christ's atonement by the believer is prerequisite for the covenant to be binding.  Reconciliation does not happen until both parties assent.  It is also a choice based on "reasoning" rather than emotion.  It definitely is not based solely on the actions of the other party.

The 3rd general requisite outlines that "A covenant against any positive law or public policy, is, generally speaking, void."  Thus people cannot make covenants that will hurt others.  For instance a covenant with a contract killer to kill someone is not recognized as a valid covenant by society.  The fruit of the Spirit are often described as part of New Covenant terms.  Paul expressly stipulates that, "Against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23) Although conversion to Christianity has been criminalized in some countries it cannot be argued that any fruit of the Spirit is against any known law.  On the other hand, it can be argued that discrimination against any moral religion like Christianity is against "positive law".

The 4th general requisite says, "To make a covenant it must, according to the definition above given, be by deed or under seal."  Basically, that means that a covenant needs to have a ratification, signing ceremony of some kind, and preferably with some kind of proof.  In the case of the New Covenant, after hearing the gospel and understanding it (Romans 10:17; Matthew 17:5), giving one's assent to the terms of the covenant through faith (John 3:16, 36, 20:30-31; Romans 5:1-2) and repentance of sin (Acts 2:38, 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9), a covenant signing ceremony must take place.  A pledge or oath in the form of a confession of Christ is made (Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 10:9-10) followed by immersion (baptism) (1 Peter 3:21).  God signs the covenant in Jesus' death on the cross.  Christ's death is a necessary part of God's promises of forgive sins.  The believer signs the covenant through baptism.  He is not in the covenant by virtue of God's signing it.  He must sign it himself by his own informed free will.

All ancient treaties and important covenants were "sealed" with blood.  It was necessary for the parties to touch the blood.  Moses needed to multiply the blood of the Old Covenant with water before sprinkling it on the people, (600,000 men) to ratify the covenant. (Exodus 24:1-8)  The blood of the New Covenant is Christ's blood. (Matthew 26:28) Being limited in volume and time it must also be multiplied.  The water of baptism represents Christ's blood. (Hebrews 9:16-22 with 10:22)  Justification and sanctification both occur in baptism.  Justification occurs when the believer touches the blood of Christ who takes the penalty for the believer's sin.  Sanctification (cleansing) occurs when the blood washes his dirty sins away.   The death, burial and resurrection of Christ are also represented in baptism. (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12, 3:1) A sinner enters the water and a newly born innocent child of God exits.  The covenant is ratified.  The believer is "born again of Spirit and water". (John 3:3-5)  Prior to the consummation of the covenant in A.D. 70 the proof of being in the New Covenant was the miraculous workings of the Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 1:13-14)  After A.D. 70 the proof of being in the New Covenant was changed to agape love. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13; John 13:35)

The 4th general requisite also says, "No particular form of words is necessary to make a covenant, but any words which manifest the intention of the parties, in respect to the subject matter of the contract, are sufficient."  In the New Covenant's case the believer is asked to affirm, in words, his faith in Christ's death, burial and resurrection and his desire to accept Him as Lord of his/her life.  The good confession and baptism together are the oath and pledge of the New Covenant. (1 Timothy 6:12; 1 Peter 3:21)

Covenant law is very specific as to parties, terms and promises.  None of these categories and terminology is random or arbitrary.  They are inherent categories in all covenants.

Conclusion

Taking some part of the New  Covenant and calling it the whole is not good theology.  Tampering with the parties to include people who haven't chosen to be parties out of their own free will, tampering with the covenant binding process or ratification ceremony to make it unconditional, elimination of covenant terms and stipulations because they are seen as "works" rather than "acts of faith" and changing covenant promises to include Old Covenant physical blessing are all examples of the abuse of covenant and an abuse of scripture.

The New Covenant in Christ is predestined.  Nobody has the right to change it to suit themselves.  (Even if they claim, "God has made it clear to me.")  It's time we learn what a COVENANT REALLY IS and accept the New Covenant AS IT IS, revealed to us IN SCRIPTURE.