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

[Iconoclast]

Dr.Duncan points us in a biblical direction; Discussing Hebrews6:12-19 he says this.

The sort of knowledge of God which can be taught in a theology class is never an end in itself. It is always a means to a deeper and higher end. And that end is, of course, the glory of God and union with Him. And that flows from communion with God.
We learn about God in order that we might know Him. And by knowing Him, I mean entering into a full relationship and fellowship with Him. If I could repeat this in another way, saving knowledge of God is covenant knowledge, and covenant knowledge is personal knowledge. It is not just knowledge about God; it is knowledge of God Himself. Covenant knowledge is the knowledge of communion and fellowship with the living God.

This is what God has chosen us to, from the Beginning as our text indicates

 

[AustinC]

I am biased towards Systematic Theology, you are right there. The reason is that I have a degree in Systematic Theology. As a requirement I also had to take grad classes on Christian history (I say "had to", but I absolutely loved it).

What is interesting is that you identify Scripture as an early creed rather than a teaching of God through Paul. I have often heard some say certain passages may have been an early creed.

I cannot agree with you that Paul was quoting a creed rather than delivering to us God's Word. But that has more to do about my view of Scripture than it does with you (I believe Scripture is God's Word).

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?

 

[AustinC]

There was a time Dispensationalism had not yet spread out of Calvinism.

Zwingli taught a covenant of grace and a covenant of works. But Covenant Theology as we know it was developed within the Presbyterian Church and spread from there (particularly within Reformed denominations, and sometimes as a justification for infant salvation).

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

 

[AustinC]

Let's play a game.

Let's call it "The Integrity Test".

Please provide a quote of any member on this forum claiming the word "Trinity" is in the Bible.

It's a cool game as this is a Christian board and responses (or silence) often reveals character.

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

 

[AustinC]

The Apostles wrote nothing of Covenant Theology.

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

Duncan offers this;
Why study Covenant Theology? I want to start off with the question of, "Why study Covenant Theology?" Why study Covenant Theology? I want to give you several answers to that question. The first answer to that question is this: Because biblically and theologically speaking, the covenant is the bridge between anthropology and soteriology. What I mean by that is, as you study the biblical doctrine of man and you find him fallen, the answer to the question as to "How God gets man out of that predicament?" is found in the area of the doctrine of the covenants.
It is by a covenantal redemptive design that God saves us. A design that begins before the foundation of the world, I might add. And so the covenant is the bridge between your doctrine of fallen man and your doctrine of salvation, theologically speaking.

 

[Silverhair]

The word Trinity is right next to the term Covenant of Redemption

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"

 

[Marooncat79]

Not really.

Covenant Theology is a new way of viewing Scripture by viewing God's salvation economy under a specific set of covenants. Covenant Theology is based on 16th century ideas but was not developed until the 17th century.

The Apostles wrote nothing of Covenant Theology. Christianity knew nothing of Covenant Theology until Presbyterian theologians developed the idea

That does not mean it is wrong, but it is not in Scripture and it was foreign to Christianity until the 17th century. And even now it is a minority view primarily limited to Calvies.

It is a crutch some use to organize Scripture (and redemptive history) in a way they can understand. So it can be helpful, at least to make points about God's interaction with men. The issue is some love ve these crutches more than they love God's Word.

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

 

[Marooncat79]

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"

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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"

Yes Silverhair.
The point of using the term trinity is that we all know that the trinity is taught by compiling verses together and we find the conclusion to be what you posted.
In the same way, The Covenant of Redemption is also clearly taught in scripture without using that exact wording.
Many sections of scripture speak of this Covenant between three Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, before the world was.
We will unfold it here.

 

[JonC]

Spurgeon and all the Particular Baptists saw these truths, as well as Presbyterian Brothers, and all manner of reformed people.
For you to attempt to denigrate all these godly men seems to be excessive hubris on display.
Let's get back to the topic at hand.

I'm not denigrating anybody.

You, however, have declared that all Christians prior to the 17th Century and most afterwards were not ready to share the gospel.

Have you even considered that?

You get emotional when I point out the fact that Covenant Theology is a relatively new idea developed by the Presbyterian Church. You see that as denigrating Reformed preachers.

BUT you are completely blind to the fact that you were denigrating the Apostles, the Early Church, most Christians today and every Christian prior to the 17th century by claiming they were not ready to share the gospel.

You confuse theory and method with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[JonC]

Yes Silverhair.
The point of using the term trinity is that we all know that the trinity is taught by compiling verses together and we find the conclusion to be what you posted.
In the same way, The Covenant of Redemption is also clearly taught in scripture without using that exact wording.
Many sections of scripture speak of this Covenant between three Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, before the world was.
We will unfold it here.

Wrong.

The doctrine of the Trinity is actually in the text of Scripture (not in one place, but there). Covenant Theology is not (even theologians who hold Covenant Theology understand this fact). It is a method of understanding how God interacts with man throughout redemptive history.

You have a very bad habit for f equating anything you believe, any method you use, and any crutch you must have with God's Word while demeaning the rest of Christianity.

The reason I point this out is in hopes you will grasp (and work on) your arrogance and stop demeaning the children of God.

You posted that all Christians before the 17th century and most Christians including many Calvinists (all who did not affirm Covenant Theology) are not ready to share the gospel.

That is arrogant and wrong (and I actually don't have an issue at all with Covenant Theology...my issue is how you equate it to Scripture).

I am not exactly sure why you have chosen to post on a Baptist board when you appear to be a Presbyterian who holds to believers baptism.

 

[JonC]

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

Yes. History.

The Presbyterian Church developed Covenant Theology. But prior to that Reformers had concluded that there were two covenants through which we view redemption (works and grace).

Facts are facts.

That said, I have no issue with Covenant Theology. I agree with much of it. Unfortunately Covenant Theology has become more inventive over the past few decades.

 

[JonC]

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.

Yes, the Apostles talked about covenants AND dispensation,

But we are talking about Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

I hold Covenant Theology as I believe it makes more sense when dealing with covenants (actual covenants, not imaginary ones).

That said, I am not going to pretend one must hold Covenant Theology to be ready to share the gospel. I'm not going to invent a history for the method. I'm certainly not going to dismiss passages that speak of dispensations.

The issue is the arrogance in which you and Icon operate, condemning all who disagree with you as less able to share the gospel of Jesus Christ when history and God proves you wrong.

Look at @Iconoclast . If anybody dates disagree with him he will say they are demeaning the minority of Christians who hold whatever view being discussed. Yet he actively demeans other Christians.

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

 

[JonC]

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?

No, it is not a creed but rather it is exactly what Paul (and God through Paul) states it to be (a summary of what he taught as primary importance).

It can be used as a creed, but Paul saying what he has continually taught itself is not a creed.

A creed is a formal statement of belief. For that to be a creed one would have to prove Paul meant it not as a summary of what he taught but as a formal statement of belief. That cannot be done (we cannot prove Paul received and passed on that as a formal statement as he could simply be passing on what was received and taught).

You would do better had you taken at least undergrad theology courses. As it stands you obviously do not understand Covenant Theology (you confuse it with the existence of covenants), have absolutely no clue in regards to Christian History (except, perhaps, what you can find on Google to support what you want to believe), and have resorted to demeaning Baptist seminaries.

 

[JonC]

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.

The problem I have with Covenant Theology is applying it to all of God's interactions with man. There are places (depending on what version of Covenant Theology we are dealing with) where a covenant is assumed and a few where covenants are forced.

That said, we can certainly benefit through studying God's covenants.

I keep thinking of John Piper's justification for teaching the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Basically he does because it is easily taught and accepted while traditional Christian positions are more difficult to explain to a contemporary audience.

Reformed Theology is very simplistic, easy to teach and accept. Covenant Theology is also simple and easily taught/ learned because it is one method for all of God.

But should simplicity be the criteria?

 

[Silverhair]

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.

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.

 

[AustinC]

No, it is not a creed but rather it is exactly what Paul (and God through Paul) states it to be (a summary of what he taught as primary importance).

It can be used as a creed, but Paul saying what he has continually taught itself is not a creed.

A creed is a formal statement of belief. For that to be a creed one would have to prove Paul meant it not as a summary of what he taught but as a formal statement of belief. That cannot be done (we cannot prove Paul received and passed on that as a formal statement as he could simply be passing on what was received and taught).

You would do better had you taken at least undergrad theology courses. As it stands you obviously do not understand Covenant Theology (you confuse it with the existence of covenants), have absolutely no clue in regards to Christian History (except, perhaps, what you can find on Google to support what you want to believe), and have resorted to demeaning Baptist seminaries.

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.

 

[Marooncat79]

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