Baptists Believe...

Brother Ed, Haven't seen you post for awhile, hope you have been well. When you get up to your age bracket you never know when the old body will just conk out (HA HA)

Anyway, we've been down the road before on the covenant issue so besides saying that you are trying to make the pre-Jesus covenant type the same as the post-Jesus covenant type. My God loved Me enough that the new covenant was a whole new ball game, one that even a gentile like myself could play. The world wide covenant is just so much different then what God use to do that they cannot be compared.

On a heartfilled note: I really feel bad for you and others who will worry throughout your life whether you are Heaven bound or not, stop right there - don't say it - if you believe you can break the covenant then somewhere in the depth of your heart and mind you worry about your eternal status, you would have to. I beg of you Ed and others to trust in God's promises and KNOW you are already on a Heaven-bound path, if in faith you have trutsed the complete work of Jesus on the cross and his ressurection as a clear defeat of death and Satan. I will remember you in my prayers.

In the love of the Savior, who saves forever,
Brian

 

Hello Brother Brian --

Yeah, the old body has been givin' me fits lately. Not as bad as our parish priest though. I found out tonight that he is in the hospital. Seems they found three blocked arteries. He's doing fine, but the possibility of more surgery is there.

Anyhow, let me address just one issue regarding your rather unwarranted division of the covenant into two different things.

The New Covenant is the fulfillment and betterment of the Old Covenant. It is not a completely different and new thing. The covenantal rules which applied in the Old also apply in the New, such as the requirement of the believer to be faithful to the oath he has taken upon being circumcized/baptized.

You are approaching the covenant as if it is a contract. Thus, you see it as being replace by a better contract, a new piece of "paperwork" as it were. This is the Western and juridical view, the view of the Roman courtroom which Luther and Calvin espoused (not surprising considering that both were trained as lawyers).

Western theology was really influenced a great deal by St. Augustine. The Roman Church, and by extension, the Protestants, have a very juridical view of God's dealings with us. But we in the East strive to view God's work in us as one of unity with us and our becoming like Him. If you read most books by Eastern Orthodox authors, this unity with Christ, our becoming like God, (called "theosis") is the theme of these writings.

A contract is not a covenant. A covenant is the giving of two people to each other. It is the unity in love of two who are in love, who share everything, agree upon all things, who are "one flesh" in both flesh and spirit.

Our God exists in a Trinitarian covenant of three persons. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are completely UNITED in will and love. There is not the slightest shadow or blemish of difference in will, desire, love, unity between the Three.

As I said to Javalady, marriage is the earthly picture (and a poor one at that) of the wonderful and blessed reality of the unity of the Godhead and moreover, the unity which God shares with His beloved Bride in Heaven. That, and not some dry contract, devoid of love, is covenant.

That is also what salvation is -- UNITY with Christ, who is our righteousness. As long as I am in unity with Christ by eschewing sin and living according to the commandments (John 14:21), why shouldn't I have every hope of Heaven? If I am not participating in open sin, defiance to ecclessiastical authority, or some other moral aberration, I am united with Christ. And the more I receive Him in the Eucharist, becoming "one flesh" with Him just as the husband and wife become "one flesh" (there is a purposeful and deliberate parallelism in Scripture between spiritual unfaithfulness and harlotry), I have every reason to look forward to the Great Judgement armed with a good answer in a good conscience.

If you will do some study of the sexual terminologies in Scripture and the pictures painted of marital fidelity and infidelity, and compare them to the relationship of Chris and we, His Bride, you will see the intimacy I am describing. We are celebrating the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. It is ongoing and the Bride is going out inviting all to come in and partake of the love of the Groom in the Eucharist. He is both the One Who feeds us and the Divine Meal of Forgiveness. He is both the offered and the offerer. We join with Him in an intimacy which will only grow in Heaven. This is just the starting point here on earth.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

"That is also what salvation is -- UNITY with Christ, who is our righteousness."

I do hope you mean oneness and not unity

UNP
Adam

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
On a heartfilled note: I really feel bad for you and others who will worry throughout your life whether you are Heaven bound or not, stop right there - don't say it - if you believe you can break the covenant then somewhere in the depth of your heart and mind you worry about your eternal status, you would have to. I beg of you Ed and others to trust in God's promises and KNOW you are already on a Heaven-bound path, if in faith you have trutsed the complete work of Jesus on the cross and his ressurection as a clear defeat of death and Satan. I will remember you in my prayers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have known more Baptists in my life than you can imagine that have doubted their salvation in tears, because they are sincere but aware of thier sins. And when they doubt, they doubt all the more because "His spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are his children".

How does the Baptist know that they are truly saved until the end, when they have not turned from God revealing their true faith consumated in those details the Bible reveal that true believers will have, such as perseverance to the end?

As a Baptist, there is no more security than a Catholic or Lutheran or Methodist once the lights are out and you are alone in the dark with God before you.

 

Charles,

Despite your propensity for being wrong , that's a pretty good post.

 

Adam --

Guess I never stopped to consider if there is a serious difference between oneness and unity. Would you mind explaining it to me?

If you think by unity I am describing that somehow we share the ESSENCE of Who God is, then yes, that is not what I meant. I was really more meaning unity in the sense of having no essential differnce in WILLS, that we are completely united in our desires, thoughts, and wills with the divine will.

See how careful we need to be with words?

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Best description of heresy I ever heard in a long time. That kind of thinking, formulated by Luther's "faith alone" theological novum, turned Germany into a moral cesspool before Luther died. He lived to see the wretched results of his little experiment in ecclessiastical rebellion and regret it deeply.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What turned Italy into a moral cesspool?

 

YOUR PROOF, S'il vous plais.

IF indeed Italy was turned into a moral cesspool, it would be because the Church has both tares and wheat in it and the tares must have been in prominance, at least, outwardly and visibly.

Of course, I really do wonder what has turned all of Christendom into a moral cesspool if you really stop and think about it.

Think on it. So called "Christian American", where 75% of people claim to have had a "born again" or similar life changing experience with God, spends 9 Billion dollars a year on porno, constantly elects pro-abortion, socialist, idiots to congress, turns its head when the president of the USA commits fornication in the White House, and keeps the Hollywood entertainment industry in big bucks by watching every sleazy thing they crank out.

Something's drastically wrong, wouldn't you say?

On the other hand, if you read any books of history regarding 15th century Russia, you would find a spirituallity second to none. So great was it that the priests complained that they couldn't even go to market without some fish peddler wanting to discuss the two natures of Christ. This was the time of St. Seraphim of Sarov, one of the luminary saints of Orthodoxy.

We've come a long way, baby, but sadly, it's been all downhill!!

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

 

Organized crime families didnt come from Germany pal, and they certainly weren't Baptists.

 

BTW,
Mario Puzo has a new book out about pope Alexander VI that you moght find interesting.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Think on it. So called "Christian American", where 75% of people claim to have had a "born again" or similar life changing experience with God, spends 9 Billion dollars a year on porno, constantly elects pro-abortion, socialist, idiots to congress, turns its head when the president of the USA commits fornication in the White House, and keeps the Hollywood entertainment industry in big bucks by watching every sleazy thing they crank out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It feels good to agree with ya on something!

 

But unfortunately, you described the only catholic president this country has ever elected.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ps104_33:
But unfortunately, you described the only catholic president this country has ever elected. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, my understanding is that Clinton is Baptist.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Hi Ed, I seriously hope you are doing OK physically. No fun not feeling well. Anyway, you wrote:
"The New Covenant is the fulfillment and betterment of the Old Covenant. It is not a completely different and new thing. The covenantal rules which applied in the Old also apply in the New, such as the requirement of the believer to be faithful to the oath he has taken upon being circumcized/baptized."

The problem here is this is your opinion. I have read the NT many times and I don't see this argument in scripture. I think the covenant thought pattern you have is more to "prove" what you already believe. I will pay more attention to the covenant idea as I read and study the Bible in the future. I still contend that when a new covenant is made that it is "new" because it differs from the old. You do agree that the "grace" of the NT is much different then the "law" of the OT right?

In Christ,
Brian

 

Hello Brother Brian --

Thanks for the concern regarding my health. Getting old isn't the fun it is cracked up to be.

I will attempt to answer both you and Javalady in one post.

You said: "The problem here is this is your opinion. I have read the NT many times and I don't see this argument in scripture."

And you won't....at least not in the way which you are looking for it. It is like the Trinity, the case for infant baptism, the case for the Real Presence, etc. The verses don't just come right out and say "God is three Persons in One Holy Godhead" This must be exegeted from Scripture. In fact, heretic Bishop Arias was a "sola scripturalist" when it came to proving his notions of the oneness of God.

These ideas on the covenant of God are worked out by exegesis which begins with Genesis and goes all the way through Revelations. Certain principles stand out, and upon the foundation of these principles, a case is built for the covenant and how it works.

You ask if the "law covenant" is different from the "grace covenant". I would beg to disagree with you in this point. BOTH administrations of the covenant, both Old and New, were GRACE. There are numerous passages in the OT which make it clear that God choose Israel out of SHEER GRACE and nothing else, for they were not the greatest among people. God compares what He did for Israel to that of finding a naked child, bringing that child home, cleaning it, teaching it, protecting it and eventually marrying it. Everything in this description is SHEER GRACE and none of merit.

The choosing of the Hebrew nation was just as much an act of grace as the choosing of the Church. It was all of grace and not of merit at all that the covenantal nation was choosen.

But don't forget that according to Romans 2: 5-10, the Judgement of all mankind will be the same and without partiality:

Ro 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

This standard of the final judgment applies to ALL MANKIND, OT and NT. It is St. Paul's argument he is making against the Jews who thought that they would basically get a "free pass" (kinda like "OSAS") because of their being Jews.

Nope. All are judged and all have but one criteria to meet to obtain eternal felicity -- keep the covenant and live, break the covenant and die. I don't know WHO made up the idea of a "works covenant" (sounds like a Lutheranism to me), but he had no right to do so.

As for Javelady's post -- you don't understand what a covenant is or how it works. A covenant is made BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE. It is an act of the will between the two. Marriage is the proper analogy here on earth. Both enter into the marital union as a CHOICE of the will and from love for each other.

Now, if you were promised to an older man by your parents, and given to him without your consent, that would not be a covenant. A contract, yes, but not a covenant, because the main thrust of a covenant is the UNITY of the wills in love.

Abraham was put to sleep so that God could show that He needed no man to help Him with His end of the covenant. It foretells the exclusivity of Crist's work in preparing and executing the covenantal work of the Cross --i.e., without ANY aid from any man. But all covenants MUST be entered into willingly by BOTH PARTIES. Anything less is not a covenant.

Covenant relationships can also be broken, just like a marriage can be torn apart by unfaithfulness. The idea of "Once saved -- always saved" is wrong because it breaks one of the five foundational principles of how a covenant works -- oaths/sanctions. Covenants are made with oaths (think marriage VOWS) and have sanctions attached to them.

As for your last paragraph -- honestly, you've been reading too many of those poisonous little Chick tracts. St. Augustine was most certainly "catholic" in his beliefs (i.e. he believed what the universal ["katholicos"] church believed, including infant baptism and the Real Presence. He believed all that he needed to believe to be considered an orthodox believer for the times, which is to say that he was in communion with the pope in Rome and submissive to the bishops over him.

And to say that Catholics do not acknowledge the sovereignty of God is laughable. That was one of the major themes I regularly heard about from my catechist when I was studying to get into the Church. I must say, that coming from a Presbyterian Calvinist background, this acknowlegement of God's sovereignty over all was most refreshing to me.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

Ed, Thanks for your well thought out and loooooooonnnnnnnng post (just kidding). I do understand your postion and I appreciate your passion for it.

Here is where I think you go astray. The real example of the new covenant is not marriage. The real example is found in 1 Cor. 12 when God tells us that Jesus is the head of the "church" and we are the body of the "church". You see marriage takes two, and thus is the OT covenant, God and Man But---- Christ and his church is a different matter. The NT covenant is between God and God. God the father and Jesus(head of the church). The head always is the leader of the body. The body is subject to the head. Ed, God loved us so much that he made the new covenant with himself so it COULD NOT be broken. With all the failure of the old covenant it just makes sense, and lets face it, me and you would have done the same thing.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Brother Brian --

The problem with your response is that it puts you rather squarely in the Monophysite camp, that is, those who teach that Christ is endowed with but one nature.

In the person of Jesus Christ, there are two distinct persons and natures -- God and MAN.

God did not break the previous covenantal pattern by making a covenant with Himself and excluding mankind. Jesus is the MAN who is the Last Adam. He is the Head of Mankind as the One called "The Son of Man."

As the Head, He acts for all mankind, just as Adam did when he separated all mankind from God by his sin. The covenant is made between God and mankind (aw-dahm) through the physical and male body of Jesus.

We make our own covenant with God by entering into the covenant which Jesus made with God. It is essentially the same process the Jews went through with God. God made covenant with Abraham. Does that mean that the covenant made with Abraham is exclusive to Abraham? Obviously not, inasmuch as the sign/seal of covenantal entry was given to ANYONE WHO WOULD. But you are trying to make the covenant with Jesus exclusively His as a man. He is the Head, the leader, the One Who opened the doors by establishing that covenant with God for us, but that does not automatically guarentee that all will be included in it nor will all follow Him and make covenant with God.

The New Covenant is "a better coveant which speaketh of better things" for several reasons. First, because it is made in Christ's Blood, the Church, the covenantal nation of God under Christ, CANNOT FAIL. Why? Because He is in Heaven EVER MAKING Yom Kippur for the covenantal nation. This "new nation" (1 Peter 2:9) CANNOT FAIL as did the Jewish theocracy, because of the eternal and ever righteous nature of Christ's High Priesthood.

Secondly, it is a better covenant because it has better sacrifices which cleanse our conscience better. We have the true Lamb of God for our sins. We have the Sacraments by which God meets man and gives His grace to us. The Jews had the shadows of the real. We have the real.

Thirdly, we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the deposit of eternal life (Eph. 1:14). This gift was not given to kingdom members in the Old Covenant.

If I thought hard, I would probably come up with one or two more, but I am kinda beat this evening. What is not "new and better" about the New Covenant is that which is insisted upon by Calvinists and their offspring, the Evangelicals, i.e., that we have an "unconditional covenant" and therefore are "once saved - always saved." Not only does that break the principle of "oaths and sanctions" in the covenantal makeup, but it contradicts yards and yards of the writings of St. Paul's epistles in which he warns believers against falling away. You see, that is a covenantal principle, that we can break covenant and thus, if we fail to repent, lose that which is our inheritance waiting for us.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Ed, I only have a second to reply. First, I don't camp (meaning I just study and believe things for myself - as a rule anyway).

I agree with a lot of what you say about the new covenant. You did not directly address the logic behind the Christ is the head, the church is the body and together we make up the full "person" who has the covenant with God the father. That is a directly scriptual idea based on 1 cor. 12. No I did not read that anywhere it is from me. Most of what you say seems to come from church teachings rather then direct scritpture. Think about the whole thing. If you wanted to be sure something would be the best it can be(New Cov.) you would handle matters yourself. When we are truely grafted(sp?) into Christ, we become part of him and the covenant can only be broken if Christ breaks it. That is evidenced by the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer. The Holy Spirit does not come and go from a person as they choose to sin or not sin. That would be silly. The new Covenant is "better" as you said because once entered it canot be broken. Wouldn't that truley make it better? in the best sense? Why fight such a beautiful thing, since even you Ed agree that scripture is not concrete in this area. If you have to go a direction why not the one that gives God the very most compassion and love for his people. "Saving His children forever -- What a concept!!!!"

Again, we agree on a certain amount of what you said and I do appreciate your wisdom and study!

In the Love of a mighty God,
Brian

 

Brother Brian --

Well, let me first of all say thank you for making me think these things through.

I haven't really pounded Scripture a lot on this because we are limited in space by using a forum board. I have an as yet unpublished book on the covenant of God called THE DANCE OF ISAIAH. It is 106 typewritten pages and is LOADED with Scripture and exegesis of the Scriptures relating one concept to another. I just cannot do that here.

You said:

I agree with a lot of what you say about the new covenant. You did not directly address the logic behind the Christ is the head, the church is the body and together we make up the full "person" who has the covenant with God the father.

Okay. Fair point. It would seem that this is the way to look at the covenant, i.e., that since we are "in Christ" and have union with Him, that we are forever secure. The only problem is that there are other Scriptures which contradict that idea.

For instance, our Lord said that the net of the kingdom would bring both good fish and bad fish into the kingdom and that they would only be sorted out at the Great Judgment. Same idea with the wheat and the tares. Therefore, in trying to reconcile these two contradictory ideas, we need to find a definition of our covenantal relationship which fits both.

I think that the standard of the covenantal family does this nicely. We are "adopted" into the covenantal family by our baptism. We are made sons of the living God. But like Adam, we are on a probationary and testing period here on earth. We are being tested and refined in all that we go through here. The ultimate goal is to make us like Christ and worthy to receive the inheritance, which is called eternal life.

As children, we are indeed "in the body" as opposed to being out of the Body of Christ. There are only two places one can be -- either "in Adam" or "in Christ". Nothing else exists. But to be "in Christ" cannot mean that everything is once and for all settled (unless, of course, you take the judicial rather than familial view of the covenant and accept OSAS).

As family members, we are being groomed to receive that inheritance of the saints. But like family members, we can be "disinherited" if we fail to keep the family law or bring dishonor upon the family. In the Catholic Faith, we call that "mortal sin" (if unrepented of).

we become part of Him and the covenant can only be broken if Christ breaks it.

Ahhhhh......nope. Contradicts way too much Scripture from Christ and St. Paul on falling away. I haven't thought this through, but there must be a certain understanding of what it means to be "in Christ" which is different that what you understand or I can express at this time. Perhaps it is that being "in Christ" is a temporary state which must be made permanent at the Great Judgement. After all, as I said, we can lose our inheritance, which is eternal life. (Mt 21: Mr 12:7 Lu 12:13 Lu 20: Ac 26: Ga 3:18 Eph 1:11 Eph 1:14 Eph 1:18 Eph 5:5 Col 1: Col 3:24 Heb 1:4 Heb 9:15 Heb 11:8 1Pe 1:4)

That is evidenced by the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer. The Holy Spirit does not come and go from a person as they choose to sin or not sin.

I agree. But our state of grace can change drastically even though we are still the children of the Father. Look at the parable of the Prodigal. It is the perfect picture of a believe committing mortal sin and thus severing his relationship with the Father by going into the far country of sin. Now what if the boy had died in the far country of sin? Would he have received the inheritance? Not at all. He was AWAY from the father and all that was included in the father's inheritance of love for him.

In like manner, certain sins grieve the Holy Spirit away from fellowship with us and place us in a state of separation from God which is called "death." (Luke 15:24). We become "dead" again because we have broken that covenantal relationship just as the Prodigal did. And until we repent, the relationship remains severed. If we do not repent, we remain in that state of separation throughout all eternity. That is what hell really is -- severence from the love of God forever.

If you have to go a direction why not the one that gives God the very most compassion and love for his people. "Saving His children forever -- What a concept!!!!"

Actually, it is more than that. It is a beautiful reality. I have been reading some Catholic material lately on the teachings of election and perseverence in the Catholic Faith. There is a really well defined understanding of predestination, election, and perseverence in the Catholic Church, so much so that it ALMOST sounds Calvinistic. The difference between the two camps is that God DOES NOT actively elect to send people to hell. We send ourselves by our choices made here on earth. Those who reject Christ are not of the elect.

But those who opt to receive Christ (this gets complicated -- God sees what decision we will make when offered the Gospel, and to those whom He knows will respond in love and acceptance, He calls by the Holy Spirit and brings them to Himself) are given the grace to be able to respond in faith, they are given the gift of faith, and are given the gift of perseverence. It is really all God's work from beginning to end that anyone comes and perseveres to the end.

We Catholics are just not allowed to say dogmatically who is elect and who isn't, who will persevere and who will not. That is in God's hands. But I do find it refreshing to read of these great teachings in some of the books I am reading now.

Will He keep me? Yes, if I am "of the elect", I can count upon it. But I am not allowed to PRESUME upon the mercy of God and say to others or to myself "I am of the elect", for quite frankly, I simply do not know. I do not know my heart, my motives for "following Christ" nor anything else of these important items.

Good enough then that I spend my days tending to myself, praying for mercy, and studying the Scriptures. All things in God's hands, including me, therefore, I do well to just keep charge over myself.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed