Therefore, in spite of the multitude of texts which place the “old covenant” of the law of Moses in direct contrast with the “new covenant” of grace in Christ, showing that the one was a failure and the other superseded it (comp. Jer 31:31–34; Heb 8:7–12, etc), in order to maintain the unbroken continuity of the Covenant of Grace, they are forced to the unscriptural and untenable position of saying that the Law of Moses was a part of the grace covenant.
That, I believe, is a pretty good reason to reject Covenant Theology.
I would suggest Covenant Theology does the latter, which explains the "direct contrasts" passages while still allowing for an overarching moral continuity between the two. If the OT saints were saved by grace (in the Unconditional Election sense) as the NT saints are, then the symbol and observance differences between the two covenants are a moot point and we can begin arguing towards continuity. If, instead, the OT saints were saved through some level of adherence to those symbols and observances in the OT (in a Conditional Election sense) and not by grace (Unconditonal Election), then I can see Charles Fred Lincoln's point.
Be careful or you might find yourself excommunicated from the GRPL.
How were people saved in old testament times? I get the distinct impression that they were not actually saved until new testament times. Did any man actually get to heaven before the man, Jesus?
How, precisely, was an Old Testament Jew saved? On what basis?