Featured Covenant Theology

Pitchback

Yet another dismissive post, devoid of truth. Here is what I said:

Calvinism claims God predestines all things yet our temptations are not predestined. Got it.

Calvinism rewrites the bible to pour the man-made doctrine into the text.

Folks, here are the Biblical answers to the questions:

God does not punish sinners for the sins He predestines because that would be unjust.

It is often claimed God does not "tempt" but the same word is also translated "test" and so the Biblical answer is God does not put people in circumstances for ungodly purposes but for godly purposes. James tells us Satan, the World and our Flesh tempt us, i.e. try to lead us off the righteous path of God.

Reformed Covenant Theology is a mistaken view of scripture, but God did formulate the plan of redemption before the foundation of the world, and therefore He "foreknew" corporately those redeemed, and Christ being put to death by the predetermined plan was according to His foreknowledge of God's plan of redemption.​

Most Christians, I believe, do not accept the Calvinism teaching that God punishing us for the sins He predestined us to commitment demonstrates God's glory. As someone might have said, the Bible does not support that irrational absurdity.

The Bible actually teaches the opposite, that God does not punish the son for the sins of the father. So God punishes the one who does or causes to be done the sin.

Anyone who denies the same word is translated as tempted and tested simply denies John 6:6, Hebrews 11:17, Revelation 2:2 and 3:10. Just another illustration that Calvinism's claims are based on shoddy bible study.

 

Pitchback

Someone, an unnamed individual, need to provide a quote where I bashed OSAS or post a correction. Someone needs to address the evidence for a plan of redemption being formulated and agreed to before the foundation of the world, or retract the fiction that no support was provided.

 

The Bible describes the unfolding of God's agreed upon plan of Redemption. So far so good! But what does the Bible say is the reason for this “Covenant of Redemption.” To bring glory to God! When we repent we bring glory to God. Therefore our repentance must be autonomous, because if it were compelled, then it would not bring glory to God.

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.

 

It would be unfair to Calvinism to ascribe the above irrational absurdity to that mistaken doctrine.

 

It is my belief you know the truth, but seek to evade it with humor. Your views are both unstudied and bogus. The plan of Redemption is plainly taught in scripture, as is the unfolding of that plan all along the way.

 

The Bible describes the unfolding of God's agreed upon plan of Redemption. So far so good! But what does the Bible say is the reason for this “Covenant of Redemption.” To bring glory to God! When we repent we bring glory to God. Therefore our repentance must be autonomous, because if it were compelled, then it would not bring glory to God.

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.

When was Christ known as the Lamb of God? 1 Peter 1:19-20.

When were we chosen in Him corporately for salvation as the target group of His salvation plan? Ephesians 1:3-4.

Did God predestine those who He foreknew corporately to be conformed to the image of His Son? Romans 8:28-29

Did God choose us in Him corporately before the foundation of the world and predestine us corporately to adoption (our bodily resurrection in glorified bodies)? Ephesians 1:4-5.

In Him do we have redemption? Ephesians 1:7

What is the "mystery of His will" but the plan of redemption? Ephesians 1:9

What is the inheritance that is predestined according this plan of redemption? Ephesians 1:11

 

Thanks for you clear 2 cents. I, too, enjoy discussing biblical doctrine, especially the teachings of Christ.

The covenant you referred to is the New Covenant and pretty much everyone agrees the Bible teaches the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus.

However, I think, you veer off course with the claim Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world. Yes, I know several translations of Revelation 13:8 read that way, but I believe, as do many other scholars, that reading is a mistranslation. Here are some of the other translations:

NET: 13:8 and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world (a) in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.

And here is the footnote I referenced:

a) The prepositional phrase “since the foundation of the world” is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, “the Lamb who was killed” (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written” (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase “written in the book of life since the foundation of the world” occurs with no ambiguity.

This view is also held in the following translations:

NASB, HCSB, NLT, and Darby Translation. I could add the RSV and the ESV to the list, except they both mistranslate "apo" which means from as "before." But they connect the phrase to what was written rather than as the KJV does the timing of the slaying.

 

We are talking about the plan of redemption, no need to muddy the waters. Jesus was chosen to be the Christ before the foundation of the world because He was known as the Lamb before the foundation of the world. Therefore the plan of redemption included choosing the Lamb before the foundation of the world. And when God choose the Lamb He also chose those His redeemer would redeem corporately, hence He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. These two actions are part of God's plan of redemption formulated before the foundation of the world.

I will certainly agree with the view that the plan of redemption probably included the agreement of all three persons of the Trinity, but such a conclusion must be inferred from Jesus saying He was sent, and that He was willing to do the Father's will.

 

Jesus was chosen to be the Christ before the foundation of the world because He was known as the Lamb before the foundation of the world. Therefore the plan of redemption included choosing the Lamb before the foundation of the world. And when God choose the Lamb He also chose those His redeemer would redeem corporately, hence He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. These two actions are part of God's plan of redemption formulated before the foundation of the world.

I will certainly agree with the view that the plan of redemption probably included the agreement of all three persons of the Trinity, but such a conclusion must be inferred from Jesus saying He was sent, and that He was willing to do the Father's will.

 

Pitchback

More of the dismissive posts from Calvinists, devoid of content and loaded with denial of the obvious.

If a person takes a biblical truth and then extrapolates the truth, i.e. since this is true in this case, then it must be true in every case, they are engaging in speculative rationalism. Covenant Theology takes the idea that God makes conditional and unconditional covenants with people, and extrapolates the concept to claim the Bible presents one humongous Covenant.

 

As a lifelong Baptist, I grew up under the teaching of traditional Dispensationalism, with the promises to "all Israel" seen as separate from the promises to those of the New Covenant. However, upon learning at least a little of "Progressive Dispensationalism" I adopted that view because it fit with the plain reading of Galatians chapter 3.

As explained in this thread, Covenant Theology uses a mistaken approach to "replace" all Israel with the Church. So today, many who had held replacement theology on the one hand, and "parenthetical" theology on the other have moved closer to the truth, God's promises to Israel are also given to born again believers.

Whether "Progressive Covenantism" remains "Amillennial" I do not know. If not, perhaps the gap between the two "progressive" views is not as wide as I fear.