Covenant Theology

[Van]

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 recognizable form prior to the second generation reformers.

Hey Thomas15, we get it, you do not think the Reformed version of Covenant Theology is valid or has actual support in scripture. Fine, me too. But "taint so" posts without acknowledging and addressing what others see in scripture, i.e. a plan of redemption formulated before creation, does not cut the mustard. We cannot abandon truth to win arguments, otherwise we become like the guy that said scripture was silent on a plan of redemption before creation.

 

[TCGreek]

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.

And Dispensationalism is the solution?

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Thomas,

before the printing press...not many people had access to scripture to do the kind of study that puts it together. Thats why it traces mostly back to that time.....

 

[Van]

Lets throw this against the wall and see what sticks:

1) Plan of Redemption formulated before creation or Covenant of Redemption formulated before creation.

2) Dispensation of Innocence or how God dealt with Adam and Eve before the Fall versus Covenant of Works.

3) Dispensation of Conscience or how God dealt with mankind from the Fall to Abraham versus Covenant of Grace part "A".

4) Dispensation of the Promise or how God is dealing with Mankind from Abraham to the Return of Christ versus Covenant of Grace part "B."

4a) Abraham to Moses - Patriarchal Rule
4b) Moses to Christ - Mosaic Law
4c) Christ to Christ - Dispensation of Grace​

5) Millennial Kingdom on Earth versus Covenant of Grace part "C."

6) Eternal Kingdom of the New Heaven and New Earth

 

[thomas15]

And Dispensationalism is the solution?

We are not discussing dispensationalism, we are discussing covenant theology. The question is are the reformed covenants, especally the covenant of redemption biblically based?

I say that they are not. I happen to be a dispensationalist because I believe that that school is the most biblical of the various offerings. But it isn't an either/or (covenant/dispensationalist) situation.

 

[thomas15]

[/B]

Thomas,

before the printing press...not many people had access to scripture to do the kind of study that puts it together. Thats why it traces mostly back to that time.....

Not to sound unkind, but so what? How does this help your cause and hurt mine?

 

[thomas15]

Hey Thomas15, we get it, you do not think the Reformed version of Covenant Theology is valid or has actual support in scripture. Fine, me too.

Van, if you stop at this then you win the prize. You (anyone that is) cannot state as fact what you cannot prove. You cannot prove from the Bible that a covenant of redemption was cut between Jehovah and any other person(s) because the Bible is silent on the matter. However much we might believe such an arrangement exits, we cannot say that it does. The reformed are simply wrong for insisting that the covenant exits because they have no proof.

Sorry if that offends but that is the way it is.

 

[Van]

Van, if you stop at this then you win the prize. You (anyone that is) cannot state as fact what you cannot prove. You cannot prove from the Bible that a covenant of redemption was cut between Jehovah and any other person(s) because the Bible is silent on the matter. However much we might believe such an arrangement exits, we cannot say that it does. The reformed are simply wrong for insisting that the covenant exits because they have no proof.

Sorry if that offends but that is the way it is.

Strawman arguments are logical fallacies, offered up because the position cannot be defended with truth. Thomas15, you simply deny the plan of redemption exists in scripture, then offer nothing to support your fiction. So you charge me with something other than insisting that God sent the Son as His Lamb according to His plan of redemption.



Sorry if that offends but truth matters.

 

[thomas15]

Strawman arguments are logical fallacies, offered up because the position cannot be defended with truth. Thomas15, you simply deny the plan of redemption exists in scripture, then offer nothing to support your fiction. So you charge me with something other than insisting that God sent the Son as His Lamb according to His plan of redemption.

Sorry if that offends but truth matters.

Van,

That God, who is all knowing and has a divine prespective on history, certainly had/has a plan of salvation. The problem is, and you refuse to see this, is that having a plan is not the same as cutting a covenant of redemption between Jehovah and some other party.

 

[Van]

Wait a minute, did you finally acknowledge God had a plan of redemption before creation that included the Word as the Lamb of God?
We are on page 9 and I still have not seen anything to demonstrate your ability to admit to this scriptural truth.

Next, the agreement would be between God the Father, who sent the Son, and God the Son who became flesh to die for the whole world which means He accepted His role in Yahweh's plan of redemption. If you do not want to all this a "Covenant" fine, how about an agreement?

 

[Yeshua1]

And Dispensationalism is the solution?

not saying that it is the ONLY way to view Gods dealings with man, but we are asking if some of Covenant theology is based upon inference and assumptions, not upon the explicit meaning of the texts themselves?

 

[Yeshua1]

Hey Thomas15, we get it, you do not think the Reformed version of Covenant Theology is valid or has actual support in scripture. Fine, me too. But "taint so" posts without acknowledging and addressing what others see in scripture, i.e. a plan of redemption formulated before creation, does not cut the mustard. We cannot abandon truth to win arguments, otherwise we become like the guy that said scripture was silent on a plan of redemption before creation.

the problem is that we do NOT see the concept of election as you do, as we see it on the dual basis of God sovereignty and him choosing on an individual basis those to receive Christ and be saved!

So jesus ALWAYS was to be the Lamb of God, so being eternally 'chosen" , hard to see it as a time when he was not to be the messiah!

that is the problem with this type of OP, as you are thinking in a lineal time frame, while ALL of this was ALWAYS the Sovereign Will and plan of God!

 

[Van]

Wait a minute, did you finally acknowledge God had a plan of redemption before creation that included the Word as the Lamb of God?
We are on page 9 and I still have not seen anything to demonstrate your ability to admit to this scriptural truth.

Next, the agreement would be between God the Father, who sent the Son, and God the Son who became flesh to die for the whole world which means He accepted His role in Yahweh's plan of redemption. If you do not want to all this a "Covenant" fine, how about an agreement?

Jesus was foreknown before the foundation of the world as the Lamb of God. Thus the redeeming work of the Lamb was planned for before the Fall. Anyone who says Christ is not the Chosen One simply nullifies scripture for the sake of man-made doctrine.

 

[thomas15]

.... If you do not want to all this a "Covenant" fine, how about an agreement?

What does the Bible call it? A covenant? An agreement? We don't know what it is because the Bible doesn't say.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus was foreknown before the foundation of the world as the Lamb of God. Thus the redeeming work of the Lamb was planned for before the Fall. Anyone who says Christ is not the Chosen One simply nullifies scripture for the sake of man-made doctrine.

Jesus was the "always chosen" One of the Godhead who would die for the sins of his peoples!

 

[Van]

Hi Yeshua1, yes I know you think you can add to the bible and just make stuff up. You do it in many of your posts. However, for you to rewrite the bible by redefining the meaning of words puts you under the the threat of Revelation 22:19. A person becomes chosen when they go from being unchosen to being chosen. Otherwise the word has no meaning. You are taking away words from scripture found in Revelation.

 

[Van]

Hi Thomas15, I think you realize God formulated a plan of Redemption that included actions by the Father, by the Son and by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said not my will but yours, indicating Jesus was willing to do what the Father commanded. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

Why deny a basic truth of scripture? Where Reformed Theology goes off the rails is in how they understand the plan, rather than being mistaken there was a plan. This is not rocket science.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Thomas15, I think you realize God formulated a plan of Redemption that included actions by the Father, by the Son and by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said not my will but yours, indicating Jesus was willing to do what the Father commanded. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

that was in His humanity, as He always was decreed/ordained by the father to come as the passover lamb for the sake of those whom his death would atone for!

Why deny a basic truth of scripture? Where Reformed Theology goes off the rails is in how they understand the plan, rather than being mistaken there was a plan. This is not rocket science.

God had always had the ordained purpiose of the Cross to come to redeem those saved by him...

The father chose us in jesus before even the foundation of the World, and the Holy Spirit enables those chosen out to be enabled to turn to jesus and be saved!

 

[Van]

Words to redefine, chosen means never chosen, decree means never decreed, ordained means never ordained. After means before but before cannot mean after. Regenerated means born again, but born again cannot mean regenerated. On and on it goes, Calvinism's wholesale attack on word meanings, and Yeshua1 leads the charge.

 

[Yeshua1]

Words to redefine, chosen means never chosen, decree means never decreed, ordained means never ordained. After means before but before cannot mean after. Regenerated means born again, but born again cannot mean regenerated. On and on it goes, Calvinism's wholesale attack on word meanings, and Yeshua1 leads the charge.

you have to see the Fall correctly, and the plan/purposes of God correctly, than salvation can be seen in its proper light!