Covenant Theology

[Van]

Consider a mind that declares with certainty that no Covenant of Redemption was made before creation, but withholds an opinion of whether God chose the Word to be the Lamb of God before creation. Now we have 1 Peter 1:19-20. For He [Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared at these times. Now we know the Word was with God before anything was made, and we know the Word was God, and we know the Word became flesh, so by logical necessity we "know with certainty" that the Word was chosen to be the Lamb of God before creation. Anyone who denies this is simply evading the truth of scripture.

So it may not be a Covenant between the Father and the Son, but we know the Christ was sent by the Father, and the Christ is the Lamb of God. Draw your own conclusions.

In summary the Covenant of Redemption seems valid, but the Calvinistic characterization of the plan seems mistaken. As fundamentalists, we characterize the redemption plan according to a more literal understanding of the text. Therefore we reject most of Covenant Theology and embrace the more literal dispensational view, whether traditional or progressive. But we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[thomas15]

......So it may not be a Covenant between the Father and the Son, but we know the Christ was sent by the Father, and the Christ is the Lamb of God. Draw your own conclusions.

Leave it at there may or there may not be a covenant (as defined by the reformed) but the Bible does not speak of such a covenant.

To insist that by logic there must be a covenant is to say that your opinion and/or your powers of logic are the benificiary of information not found in the Bible.

 

[Van]

Not what I said, please, Thomas15 do not throw truth under the bus. I said God formulated a plan of Redemption before creation that included choosing His Redeemer, the Word, and a target group to redeem, believers, thus He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

To deny this and claim it could not be a covenant between the Father and the Son is silly. It is not an argument from silence, it is based on many specifically cited passages. A covenant means what the dictionary says a covenant means. Shall we quote it: A binding agreement. God promised and kept His promise. This is not rocket science.

What is amazing is not one person on this forum is willing to say it is true.

 

[thomas15]

Not what I said, please, Thomas15 do not throw truth under the bus. I said God formulated a plan of Redemption before creation that included choosing His Redeemer, the Word, and a target group to redeem, believers, thus He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

To deny this and claim it could not be a covenant between the Father and the Son is silly. It is not an argument from silence, it is based on many specifically cited passages. A covenant means what the dictionary says a covenant means. Shall we quote it: A binding agreement. God promised and kept His promise. This is not rocket science.

What is amazing is not one person on this forum is willing to say it is true.

It is difficult for those who claim that the Bible is their sole authority for their faith to also say that there is a Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Son when the fact of the matter is there is no mention of that covenant in the Bible.

Your frustration is not with me or any other posters who are not rushing to defend your views, your frustration is with the Biblical evidence or lack of same.

By the way, covenant theologians go to great pains in their books that defend their views to define the various kinds of covenants. But when they get down to business and start talking about their covenants of works, grace and redemption, the trend is to ignore their definitions and use, as you do deductive logic to say there MUST be our covenants. Or they turn every Biblical promise into an all encompasing covenant that completly destroys the terms and conditions of the actual Biblical covenants, which contain a lot of details that the reformed have no use for.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is difficult for those who claim that the Bible is their sole authority for their faith to also say that there is a Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Son when the fact of the matter is there is no mention of that covenant in the Bible.

Your frustration is not with me or any other posters who are not rushing to defend your views, your frustration is with the Biblical evidence or lack of same.

By the way, covenant theologians go to great pains in their books that defend their views to define the various kinds of covenants. But when they get down to business and start talking about their covenants of works, grace and redemption, the trend is to ignore their definitions and use, as you do deductive logic to say there MUST be our covenants. Or they turn every Biblical promise into an all encompasing covenant that completly destroys the terms and conditions of the actual Biblical covenants, which contain a lot of details that the reformed have no use for.

maybe it because baptists say the bible is the SOLE Authority for all doctrines/practices, while Reformed would state that it is the primary one?

 

[thomas15]

maybe it because baptists say the bible is the SOLE Authority for all doctrines/practices, while Reformed would state that it is the primary one?

Maybe. But how do you explain Reformed Baptists (a contradiction if there ever was)?

 

[Yeshua1]

Maybe. But how do you explain Reformed Baptists (a contradiction if there ever was)?

fellow bethren in the lord!

Presbys that got it right!

 

[TCGreek]

There's not much to debating when all minds are already made up.

 

[thomas15]

There's not much to debating when all minds are already made up.

Of whom do ye speaketh?

 

[Van]

There is no discussion when no one discusses the topic. Not one person has said whether or not they agree that the Bible teaches God formulated a plan of redemption before creation. Not one.

Thomas15 wants to discuss the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, but refuses to discuss the Biblical Basis for the plan of Redemption formulated before creation. Go figure.

We are on page 7 of a full blown effort to stonewall the topic by those who hide from the light.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no discussion when no one discusses the topic. Not one person has said whether or not they agree that the Bible teaches God formulated a plan of redemption before creation. Not one.

Thomas15 wants to discuss the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, but refuses to discuss the Biblical Basis for the plan of Redemption formulated before creation. Go figure.

We are on page 7 of a full blown effort to stonewall the topic by those who hide from the light.

maybe because the Lord is silent on that issue, the scriptures do NOT direct refer to it?

 

[Yeshua1]

There's not much to debating when all minds are already made up.

Do you have a clear biblical reference to either the Covenant of Works, or One between the Godhead?

 

[Van]

maybe because the Lord is silent on that issue, the scriptures do NOT direct refer to it?

Once again a direct and obvious falsehood has been posted. Scripture directly refers to God's predetermined plan, that Christ was foreknown as the Lamb of God before the foundation of the World and that He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

You cannot discuss the bible if you simply ignore what it says.

 

[Van]

Hi TCGreek, you made up your mind not to contribute to the discussion, but rather to find fault with anyone who tries to discuss Covenant Theology.

In other words you know a great deal about speculative irrationalism, but nothing of the philosophy that undergirds Covenant Theology where God's exhaustively determines whatsoever comes to pass according to the Covenant of Redemption.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Consider a mind that declares with certainty that no Covenant of Redemption was made before creation, but withholds an opinion of whether God chose the Word to be the Lamb of God before creation. Now we have 1 Peter 1:19-20. For He [Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared at these times. Now we know the Word was with God before anything was made, and we know the Word was God, and we know the Word became flesh, so by logical necessity we "know with certainty" that the Word was chosen to be the Lamb of God before creation. Anyone who denies this is simply evading the truth of scripture.

So it may not be a Covenant between the Father and the Son, but we know the Christ was sent by the Father, and the Christ is the Lamb of God. Draw your own conclusions.

In summary the Covenant of Redemption seems valid, but the Calvinistic characterization of the plan seems mistaken. As fundamentalists, we characterize the redemption plan according to a more literal understanding of the text. Therefore we reject most of Covenant Theology and embrace the more literal dispensational view, whether traditional or progressive. But we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We do know that Christ was foreknown as our Savior before the foundation of the world, according to Peter. The book of Hebrews tells us His work was finished before the foundation of the world. Ephesians tells us we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. My conclusion is that the Triune God planned for a Savior before creation, but the details of how that came about are not revealed. One could presume a covenant was made, but one could also assume that God is three in one and always agrees perfectly.

 

[thomas15]

We do know that Christ was foreknown as our Savior before the foundation of the world, according to Peter. The book of Hebrews tells us His work was finished before the foundation of the world. Ephesians tells us we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. My conclusion is that the Triune God planned for a Savior before creation, but the details of how that came about are not revealed. One could presume a covenant was made, but one could also assume that God is three in one and always agrees perfectly.

Very well said.

 

[TCGreek]

Hi TCGreek, you made up your mind not to contribute to the discussion, but rather to find fault with anyone who tries to discuss Covenant Theology.

In other words you know a great deal about speculative irrationalism, but nothing of the philosophy that undergirds Covenant Theology where God's exhaustively determines whatsoever comes to pass according to the Covenant of Redemption.

I believe you're correct in your assessment.

For example, if we have to provide prooftexts for certain theological constructs, a debate has ended before it even gets started.

But if we can agree on biblical themes/motifs, which we then label as covenant of works and so on, then we may agree to disagree here and there.

 

[TCGreek]

Do you have a clear biblical reference to either the Covenant of Works, or One between the Godhead?

I hold to what interpreters and theologians call divine accommodation, as it applies to revelation, a concept which goes back to Calvin. With that in mind, covenantal concept is all over the ancient Near East and we see the same throughout the Pentateuch, to begin with.

 

[Van]

We do know that Christ was foreknown as our Savior before the foundation of the world, according to Peter. The book of Hebrews tells us His work was finished before the foundation of the world. Ephesians tells us we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. My conclusion is that the Triune God planned for a Savior before creation, but the details of how that came about are not revealed. One could presume a covenant was made, but one could also assume that God is three in one and always agrees perfectly.

Thanks Bronconagurski, for actually admitting to an obvious scriptural truth. To what passage in Hebrews were you referring to?

 

[thomas15]

..... With that in mind, covenantal concept is all over the ancient Near East and we see the same throughout the Pentateuch, to begin with.

What we see in the pentateuch and the prophets are detailed and specific covenants. What the reformed offer is a covenant concept that tries to offer a biblical interpretation and justification to their pre-suppositions.

I do not believe that anyone untrained in covenant theology could start an intense study of the Bible and after a time come up with what is now called reformed covenant theology in all it's fascinating details. The concept does not really appear in any recongnizable form prior to the second generation reformers.