:laugh::laugh::laugh:... Instigator!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Covenant Theology
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
:laugh::laugh::laugh:... Instigator!
jesus was tagged with same line, as was paul, so thanks for the compliment!
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are using here a bad analogy, as the Bible teaches that God will not punish in this life a person who does NOT follow in his father foot steps!
NOT refering to the problem of the Sin debt the Cross atones for, but in a practical sense that if your DAD drinks and gets thrown in jail, if you refuse to drink, will not get in jail!
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.
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
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
thomas15
Well-Known Member
It matters not to me what you think of my theology or the amount of study disclipline you give me credit for.
There is/was/always has been a plan of salvation because Jehovah knows all things. However to say that Jehovah cut a covenant of redemption with another party (in this case God the Son) is a concept we cannot know for sure because the Bible does not speak of such a covenant. That Jehovah can speak covenant language and make covenants is not a matter of debate, the bible is full of them. Why then would Jehovah be so vague with respect to this salvation covenant that he didn't bother to inspire the Bible writers to mention them?
I personally think it is a bit silly to insist that Jehovah made such a covenant with the pre-incarnate Jesus. God does not have to make covenants with himself.
Sevenzedek
New Member
Please suffer me to throw in my 2 cents on the subject at hand. I realize I am new here, but I quite enjoy talking about the things of God. And I mean no harm.
2 cents:
Jehovah wasn't vague with respect to this salvation covenant (Covenant of Redemption). One only has to know where to look.
Personally, I see where God has "cut" a Covenant of Redemption. To cut a covenant means that either an animal or a person has been slain in order to validate the covenant. During times past when a covenant was "cut," it meant that, if one failed to uphold the terms of the covenant, then they should be as the sacrificed animal. You can hear this concept some through when you hear people in the Old Testament say things like, "May the Lord do to me and more also..."
Remember when God passed through the pieces of flesh when he made a covenant with Abraham? He was "cutting" a covenant.
When Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world, a covenant was made. Jesus, as the representative of God's people (who failed to uphold the terms of God's covenant), became as one of those animals that was "cut" and killed. More specifically, he was (and is) the LAMB who was slain before the foundation of the world. It is for these, and other reasons, that I think that there is such a covenant of redemption between the members of the Trinity.
I don't see that a made covenant between Jesus (the God-MAN who represents his covenant people) and God (Jehovah) is silly. If Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world, it would also be accurate to say that he represented his people in the Covenant of Redemption before the foundation of the world.
But who am I. Such knowledge seems too wonderful for me.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
First post on this Forum! I think!
I am trying to figure out what speculative rationalism is. Seems to be self contradictory or irrational to me!
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
How about progressive covenantalism??? It is basically covenant theology w/out the theological covenants. Some call it new covenant theology. This is where reformed baptists are going. Gentry's new book, Kingdom through Covenant is going to be the standard and tour de force on this issue. Just surprised Westminster book store won't sell it.
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.
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.