Covenant Theology

[TCGreek]

yes, for it is implicitly taught in it!

Then why don't you extend the same courtesy to those who hold to what you seem to deny?

 

[Van]

No, accept that Jesus was chosen by the father to be the messiah, but he also agreed to do it... Just saying that it was jesus and the Cross ordained, not the plan that was elected, and sinners are chosen on an individual basis for salvation too!

Calvinists have a very difficult time saying what they mean. Here I can infer that Yeshua1 accepts that Jesus was chosen by the Father to be the Messiah before creation. But lots of other interpretations are possible.

But if that was what Yeshua1 was trying to communicate, then we have God choosing His Redeemer, His Lamb, with no plan of Redemption, no plan to sacrifice the Lamb of God for the remission of sin. Right, got it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Calvinists have a very difficult time saying what they mean. Here I can infer that Yeshua1 accepts that Jesus was chosen by the Father to be the Messiah before creation. But lots of other interpretations are possible.

But if that was what Yeshua1 was trying to communicate, then we have God choosing His Redeemer, His Lamb, with no plan of Redemption, no plan to sacrifice the Lamb of God for the remission of sin. Right, got it.

No, rather we see that God was going to have Jesus die on benefit of His chosen peoples, to be redeemed from their own sins! Just don't see father Son having an 'agreement" to have that done, as that was always been the plan!

What IS elect are the sinners who would come to jesus, and be saved by His death, those who were chosen beforehand to be saved by God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Then why don't you extend the same courtesy to those who hold to what you seem to deny?

Why don't others see the Rapture that we see taught in the bible though?

DO affirm you have the right to believe it.... In Covenant theology, just don't see it in the bible, thats all!

 

[thomas15]

I am not making a claim about a "covenant" - I am making a claim that the Word was chosen as the Redeemer before creation, and therefore God's plan of Redemption was formulated before creation.

Reformed covenant theology teaches that there are 2 or 3 covenants that Jehovah is party to that are used to guide the believer in interpretating the Bible. Those covenants are the covenant of works, the covenant of grace and a third covenant of redemption. I would be very surprised that to learn that you don't know this and thus feel the need to make fine points of distinction in a thread about covenant theology but I guess you know better than I what you actually believe.

Be that as it may, on the topic of the covenant of redemption, the Bible is silent on the matter which tells this half-wit with an opinion ( i refer to yours truly) that insisting on such a covenant is basically an unbiblical doctrine.

 

[thomas15]

Do you believe in the Trinity? If so, did you get it from your Bible?

Actually, and I say this in hushed tones, I do believe and have on many posts mentioned my belief in the triune God. Why? because the Bible teaches it.

But when I go to the scriptures in search of a covenant between two parties, any parties that form the basis of the reformed concept of the covenants of Works, Grace and/or Redemption, I come up kind of empty handed.

True, I read about some actual covenants in the Bible (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New and so forth) and true I read that we are saved by Grace (as in Eph 2:8-9), all this is true. But where in the Holy Bible does Jehovah cut an actual Covenant of Grace or Works or Redemption?

 

[thomas15]

Actually, and I say this in hushed tones, I do believe and have on many posts mentioned my belief in the triune God. Why? because the Bible teaches it.

But when I go to the scriptures in search of a covenant between two parties, any parties that form the basis of the reformed concept of the covenants of Works, Grace and/or Redemption, I come up kind of empty handed.

True, I read about some actual covenants in the Bible (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New and so forth) and true I read that we are saved by Grace (as in Eph 2:8-9), all this is true. But where in the Holy Bible does Jehovah cut an actual Covenant of Grace or Works or Redemption?

On edit: Let me add this. I have said many times that even on the PB board where everyone believes in reformed covenant theology, even there the old reformed pro's have much difficulties and perform much hand wringing when asked to show where in the Bible the covenants of covenant theology are taught. It always comes down to what the WCF or the 1689 Baptist Confessions state, not what's found in the words of Scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

On edit: Let me add this. I have said many times that even on the PB board where everyone believes in reformed covenant theology, even there the old reformed pro's have much difficulties and perform much hand wringing when asked to show where in the Bible the covenants of covenant theology are taught. It always comes down to what the WCF or the 1689 Baptist Confessions state, not what's found in the words of Scripture.

Don't the reformed bethren treat those in the same way Lutheryns do luthor catechism/ Not the bible, but really close to the only way to understand it?

 

[thomas15]

Don't the reformed bethren treat those in the same way Lutheryns do luthor catechism/ Not the bible, but really close to the only way to understand it?

I would generally agree with this. Years ago I was involved with a Lutheran Church (It was convenient for me) and much of what they considered Christian "theology" was taken from the catechism or historical Lutheran books and although these had references to the Bible, little attention was given to those actual verses in context.

A lot of what we consider good theology can be refrenced to the Apostles Creed. But can we learn the doctrines of Salvation by Grace through Faith in the risen Christ strictly from the Apostles creed alone? How many people know this creed by heart, recite it all the time but have no concept of placing their trust in Christ for their redemption?

 

[Van]

Reformed covenant theology teaches that there are 2 or 3 covenants that Jehovah is party to that are used to guide the believer in interpretating the Bible. Those covenants are the covenant of works, the covenant of grace and a third covenant of redemption. I would be very surprised that to learn that you don't know this and thus feel the need to make fine points of distinction in a thread about covenant theology but I guess you know better than I what you actually believe.

Be that as it may, on the topic of the covenant of redemption, the Bible is silent on the matter which tells this half-wit with an opinion ( i refer to yours truly) that insisting on such a covenant is basically an unbiblical doctrine.

Who was it that complained about not getting an answer to the question he asked?

I am making a claim that the Word was chosen as the Redeemer before creation, and therefore God's plan of Redemption was formulated before creation.

You seem unwilling to admit this claim is true, or explain why you think it untrue.

 

[Yeshua1]

Who was it that complained about not getting an answer to the question he asked?

I am making a claim that the Word was chosen as the Redeemer before creation, and therefore God's plan of Redemption was formulated before creation.

You seem unwilling to admit this claim is true, or explain why you think it untrue.

hard to say "was Chosen" as that implies a time when he was not coming to die as the messiah! From Eternity, he was ordained to come and die on the Cross, in order to reddeem a people back to God!

 

[Yeshua1]

I would generally agree with this. Years ago I was involved with a Lutheran Church (It was convenient for me) and much of what they considered Christian "theology" was taken from the catechism or historical Lutheran books and although these had references to the Bible, little attention was given to those actual verses in context.

A lot of what we consider good theology can be refrenced to the Apostles Creed. But can we learn the doctrines of Salvation by Grace through Faith in the risen Christ strictly from the Apostles creed alone? How many people know this creed by heart, recite it all the time but have no concept of placing their trust in Christ for their redemption?

I respect our reformed bethren for their strong views on salvation and the bible especially, but just wonder if they are allowed to have any beliefs/doctrines not held in the creeds/confessions?

 

[Van]

Lets thrown chosen on the fire Calvinists used to nullify word meanings. Chosen now means eternally considered chosen. Nothing in the Bible is safe from redefinition in the name of Calvinism. First it was claimed Jesus was not chosen. Then it is claimed He was always the Chosen One so He was never chosen. Shuck and jive folks.

Was the plan of Redemption formulated before creation. No one has offered an answer. Was Jesus chosen to be the Redeemer before creation? No one has answered that question.

Bottom line Jesus was known as the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world, but God had no plan according to all the other posters on this thread to redeem people for His own possession. Hangs together nicely.

 

[thomas15]

Who was it that complained about not getting an answer to the question he asked?

First of all, I'm not complaining about anything or anyone. Why? because I have the Word on my side.

I am making a claim that the Word was chosen as the Redeemer before creation, and therefore God's plan of Redemption was formulated before creation.

You seem unwilling to admit this claim is true, or explain why you think it untrue.

Try to envision a special meeting between the three persons of the Godhead (with all of what we know about Jehovah and His all-knowing-ness) where they go back and forth hammering out the details of redemption and where this all-knowing Deity actually has to make a covenant with (presumably) Himself called the covenant of redemption.

Add to the situation the fact that the Bible is silent on this covenant.

 

[thomas15]

I respect our reformed bethren for their strong views on salvation and the bible especially, but just wonder if they are allowed to have any beliefs/doctrines not held in the creeds/confessions?

To the reformed, Sola Scriptura does not (in actual practice) mean the Bible alone.

 

[Van]

First of all, I'm not complaining about anything or anyone. Why? because I have the Word on my side.

No the word says our yes should be yes and our no should be no, but you avoid saying yes or no and evade the question. The Word is against you when you engage in evasion to hide the truth.

Try to envision a special meeting between the three persons of the Godhead (with all of what we know about Jehovah and His all-knowing-ness) where they go back and forth hammering out the details of redemption and where this all-knowing Deity actually has to make a covenant with (presumably) Himself called the covenant of redemption.

Add to the situation the fact that the Bible is silent on this covenant.

Again, you are simply claiming no covenant, but not addressing whether and when the plan of redemption was formulated. Shuck and jive sire, shuck and jive.

 

[Yeshua1]

No the word says our yes should be yes and our no should be no, but you avoid saying yes or no and evade the question. The Word is against you when you engage in evasion to hide the truth.



Again, you are simply claiming no covenant, but not addressing whether and when the plan of redemption was formulated. Shuck and jive sire, shuck and jive.

Think that IF God wanted us to know what happened back in eternity regarding that, we would have it spelled out in the bible...

But its not there, for even reformed will admit they are making an inference, and mainly getting it off from their Creeds...

Not saying it was not done that way, just NO Biblical support for it!

 

[thomas15]

No the word says our yes should be yes and our no should be no, but you avoid saying yes or no and evade the question. The Word is against you when you engage in evasion to hide the truth.

I cannot truthfully say yes or no to this finely worded question. Why? because there is no way to verify the validity of the premise. If you want to call me whatever name makes you happy because of this go right ahead.

Again, you are simply claiming no covenant, but not addressing whether and when the plan of redemption was formulated. Shuck and jive sire, shuck and jive.

True. I'm claiming no covenant of redemption because the Bible doesn't teach it. If there is a covenant of redemption as the reformed covenant crowd claim, Jehovah in His wisedom has decided that thomas15 doesn't need to know anything about it because if thomas15 did need to know it, Jehovah would have placed the details of this covenant in His Holy Word.

 

[Yeshua1]

I cannot truthfully say yes or no to this finely worded question. Why? because there is no way to verify the validity of the premise. If you want to call me whatever name makes you happy because of this go right ahead.





True. I'm claiming no covenant of redemption because the Bible doesn't teach it. If there is a covenant of redemption as the reformed covenant crowd claim, Jehovah in His wisedom has decided that thomas15 doesn't need to know anything about it because if thomas15 did need to know it, Jehovah would have placed the details of this covenant in His Holy Word.

maybe we could all heed the truth that God reveals to us what we need to know, but the secret/hidden things belong to God alone!

 

[thomas15]

maybe we could all heed the truth that God reveals to us what we need to know, but the secret/hidden things belong to God alone!

Amen Brother!