Featured 2 Thess. 2:13-14, What does it say? pt2

Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 not a creed, given to us by God, through Paul and the early church?

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Jon, I am not impressed with your theological training. Have you asked them for your money back?

 

Just curious if you have a source for the bold claim?

 

Are you aware that iconoclasts post was about Covenant Theology, not Trinitarianism?
The better game is: "Can You Read The Post?"

 

Wait, What!?
Are you kidding?
The vast quoting of the Covenants and connecting the past Covenants to the New Covenant runs through all the New Testament writings.

 

I would assume that you were trying to make a point with your post. I provided you with scripture in support of the Trinity do you have scripture in support of the "Covenant of Redemption"

 

Given the usage of the term Covenant in the NT (much more than Dispensationalism), the Apostles beg to differ with you

 

seemingly, you missed the point.

just because the word is not there does not mean that the concept is not there

again, eternal is not in the Hebrew of the OT

it’s is olam le olam meaning from everlasting in the past to everlasting in the future

again- Covenant of Redemption is not a stated Biblical Term, but the concept is definitely there

again what do you disagree with here?


The covenant of redemption is the eternal agreement within the Godhead in which the Father appointed the Son to become incarnate, suffer, and die as a federal head of mankind to make an atonement for their sin. In return, the Father promised to raise Christ from the dead, glorify Him, and give Him a people.

 

J.I. Packer does a good job of introducing covenant theology as a basis for doctrinal teaching because the way he explains it is familiar to reformed Baptists. Most reformed Baptists are not taught in terms of covenant theology. But the ideas behind it are found all through scripture because, as the confessions say, there is such a huge gap between God and men.

If you want to make a case for the covenant method of teaching though, you should first read the scholarly debates between Baptists and Presbyterians on infant baptism. Invariably the Baptists deemphasize covenant theology and the Presbyterians haul it out and base their argument on it. Also, and I haven't seen it mentioned here, in covenant theology you of course have promises and conditions. The condition on man's part is faith. If you want to start an argument on here just mention faith as a condition. The Primitive Baptists won't have it, the reformed Baptists and regular Baptists, and free willers do view it as a condition but with different meanings in mind, and all Calvinists are left with explaining just how you can have a covenant, with conditions, and yet be true monergists.

 

Oh I got the point but did you? What was your post {# 48} that I was responding to? @Iconoclast did not provide any scripture that shows "Covenant of Redemption" so why don't you? But when you do you will then be showing that redemption is by God because people freely trust in His son.

 

So, you disagree with most biblical scholars who all teach that this statement of Paul is an early creed of the Church, which Paul had learned and was passing on to the Corinthians for our benefit.

This is an early, formal, statement of faith. Paul tells us this. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:"

Jon, you have drifted from the simplicity of the Gospel to something that you cannot even clearly express to anyone. You reject the simple clarity of the text and complicate things so as to not even have the capacity to explain what you believe. You cannot show us any systematic understanding of your faith. All you can do is tell us how the saints of the past are woefully wrong.

I have more training than you imagine and more knowledge of Church history than you grasp. However, you are correct in that I have not delved into the teachings of the Reformed Church of America or the Christian Reformed Church of America. I have read God's word and I see how the writers of the New Testament (Covenant) connect what they are teaching to the Old Testament (Covenant) teachings. I see how God has saved by grace, through faith, from the days of Adam and Eve to this present hour. I see how God works out His will through His eternal Covenants. Perhaps you do not see this in scripture. This is therefore the point of our debate.

 

The are actually several snipets in the NT that ar from early Xian creeds