4. This Covenant of Suretiship was made upon equal or like conditions and terms; there was an equality betwixt the stipulation and restipulation; the conditions promised to Christ, and these required from him by this Covenant; not that worthless man was a wager for God to work for; for he was far below the price that love put upon him. But understand it thus, (1.) There was an equality of Justice betwixt the conditions on the one part and the other; punitive Justice could exact no more of man, by the curse of the broken Covenant, than that which Christ suffered as his Surety, Gal. 3.13, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us; and remunerative Justice could give no less to his perfect obedience unto the Law of works, than the righteousness and life which he purchased, Rom. 8.4. That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. (2.) There was an equality of proportion or merit betwixt the conditions required from, and performed by Christ, by virtue of this Covenant, and the conditions promised and performed unto Christ by this Covenant. Not a merit and satisfaction upon Christ's part de congruo (as the Schoolmen speak)6 whereby the friendship and love of the party injured doth accept of that which is not equivalent to the offence, which Vortius calleth God's Divine acceptilation(which properly had no place here, though the friendship and love betwixt God and Christ, be such as renders any thing done by him, acceptable); but a merit and satisfaction de condigno, there being a just and equal proportion betwixt the fault committed, and the satisfaction given, and betwixt the reward promised and given to Christ, and the obedience required from and performed by him, John 17.4,5, I have glorified thee on the earth, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self. Phil. 2.7,8, But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself.—Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, &c.
-
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!
Dispensational Things...pt2
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
Let's keep it simple - I don't like lengthy quotes of other people's writing, nor short posts that fail to make a real point.
The word translated "Covenant" occurs more than 300 times throughout the Scriptures & gives the name to the two volumes, before & after the coming of the LORD Jesus Christ. Limiting it's definition to "agreement" is a serious misunderstanding. As John wrote, "Um, linguistics is not theology."
The word translated "Dispensation" occurs 7 times only in the NC Scriptures, and only once in the sense used in dispensationalism. Eph. 1:10 "Steward" occurs about 20 times in Scripture, always referring to an employment situation. That's NOT the basis for a theological system.
A Scriptural "Covenant" is vastly more than an agreement. The expression "I will establish my covenant" occurs 8 times in the OC. The wording implies a pre-existing covenant, & is generally unconditional. Even in human covenants, it is made by the greater to the lesser party as a Promise, of Protection & Peace. See the account of the Gibeonites. Joshua 9, where they ask Joshua to make a league/treaty/covenant with them.
Notice the way the New Covenant is introduced in Jeremiah 31:31, quoted in Hebrews 8 -
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
That covenant expression "their God...my people" occurs throughout Scripture in various forms, not just to the people of Israel, but to the church of Corinth & to all the redeemed in the NH&NE for all eternity.
The NT opens with what amounts to a declaration of God's covenant promises to Abraham & David. Mat. 1. The songs of Mary & Zachariah, the angels & Simeon, in Luke 1 & 2 are of God fulfilling his (covenant) promises by the incarnation.
NOT a two-way agreement but the fulfilment of the Covenant promises of God in the LORD Jesus Christ.
Note the conditional "old" Covenant promise of Exodus 19:
5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’
Is that a futile covenant, a promise that God made that the subjects could NEVER fulfill? Not at all. It is an expression of the eternal Covenant made by Father & Son to be fulfilled by the perfect obedience of the Son as the Son of man, for man - for the elect & redeemed people of God. That covenant needs no imperfect future millennium for its fulfilment.
Countless Israelite saints walked with God by faith, & were blessed by that Covenant relationship. Hebrews 11 is a partial list.
In the present New Covenant "dispensation" God is using the New Covenant Gospel of his Son, in the power of his Holy Spirit to call his redeemed people for their eternal dwelling in the NH&NE.
Yes ...Covenant is central in all of scripture.
There is no trying to redefine it.
The quotes all came from a link early on that I think very few people opened...
So I brought out a few of those as there was a request....for the beef, or to see where or how we fond the COR...
Parts of the teaching, the terms that are descriptive of this arrangement, plan, purpose,oath, promise, while viewed one by one,form a composite picture.
No short cuts...
There is no trying to redefine it.
The quotes all came from a link early on that I think very few people opened...
So I brought out a few of those as there was a request....for the beef, or to see where or how we fond the COR...
Parts of the teaching, the terms that are descriptive of this arrangement, plan, purpose,oath, promise, while viewed one by one,form a composite picture.
No short cuts...
many who currently hold to Dispy theology would not divide it as he did though!
“Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.” (Acts 3:17-21)
The argument that the apostles were ignorant concerning the kingdom before the Holy Spirit had been given does not hold any merit here as these words were spoken by Peter after the fact. The breaking off of some of the natural branches and the grafting in of the wild olive shoot to share in the nourishing root was not an “afterthought.” It was in accordance with the purpose of God to have mercy on all, both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9-11).
“For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:34)
That is where Preterists and most Amillennialists and Postmillennialists stop reading. The next verses read,
“Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for the light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the starts for the light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the LORD of hosts is his name: If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever. Thus says the LORD: If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done declares the LORD.” (Jeremiah 31:35-37)
We would do well to heed the words of Paul to us Gentiles.
“But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.” (Romans 11:17-22)
The argument that the apostles were ignorant concerning the kingdom before the Holy Spirit had been given does not hold any merit here as these words were spoken by Peter after the fact. The breaking off of some of the natural branches and the grafting in of the wild olive shoot to share in the nourishing root was not an “afterthought.” It was in accordance with the purpose of God to have mercy on all, both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9-11).
“For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:34)
That is where Preterists and most Amillennialists and Postmillennialists stop reading. The next verses read,
“Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for the light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the starts for the light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the LORD of hosts is his name: If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever. Thus says the LORD: If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done declares the LORD.” (Jeremiah 31:35-37)
We would do well to heed the words of Paul to us Gentiles.
“But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.” (Romans 11:17-22)
yes...they want a do over...but they have to show what they believe now...
You made a charge, an accusation....I would like you to show three examples of what you said here...
What are you talking about? Give examples....this post was a waste of space if you cannot back it up.
Show what has been spiritualized...i am not even sure I know what you mean.
Define it....give 5 examples of who has spiritualized the scripture...
i do not think you can do it, yet you tweeted into the thread and offer nothing
Covenanter,
Yes..I understand that. The reason I opened the links was it seemed like others did not even look....so I put them in evidence so to speak. If someone is inclined the links will stimulate thought.
Yes...it is both central and crucial to a biblical understanding of our bibles.
the reason for the lengthy links in part...is that there is so much scripture and biblical teaching available , but it takes work to see it as One complete revelation ,progressively revealed.
It has been observed by many , that when persons are reluctant to answer in more detail...often it is because they know to answer correctly is going to show their point of view as defective ,and needing to be rejected.
That could be what is happening here.
Someone can complain...the quotes are too long to go over...but that is just a ruse to avoid the doctrine taught.
A person can simply pick out what they see as error and gibe their reasons...they have alot to choose from.
notice Covenant theologians use the term economy al;so when it is needful;
Yes....I will establish...MY COVENANT...with you.
Yes..I understand that. The reason I opened the links was it seemed like others did not even look....so I put them in evidence so to speak. If someone is inclined the links will stimulate thought.
.
Yes...it is both central and crucial to a biblical understanding of our bibles.
the reason for the lengthy links in part...is that there is so much scripture and biblical teaching available , but it takes work to see it as One complete revelation ,progressively revealed.
That is defective when it comes to Divine Covenants for sure.
It has been observed by many , that when persons are reluctant to answer in more detail...often it is because they know to answer correctly is going to show their point of view as defective ,and needing to be rejected.
That could be what is happening here.
Someone can complain...the quotes are too long to go over...but that is just a ruse to avoid the doctrine taught.
A person can simply pick out what they see as error and gibe their reasons...they have alot to choose from.
notice Covenant theologians use the term economy al;so when it is needful;
.
Yes....I will establish...MY COVENANT...with you.
You surprise me - & I'm sure Peter would point out that he was quoting the prophet Joel, who is in the OC Scripture. You should read before posting - Acts 2.
Scofield was pioneer dispy. I very occasionally quote him, when relevant to a discussion. I'm certainly not going to read his corrupt notes in order to answer your question.
Whatever Scofield taught, salvation has only ever been by grace, through faith, eg -
Gen. 6:2 ....the sons of God ....
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
18 But I will establish My covenant with you ...
Heb. 11:7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Notice too that Noah became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
18 But I will establish My covenant with you ...
Heb. 11:7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
That is no surprise, considering the fact that the oxymoronic "Dispy theology" is men's invention, seriously contrary to Scripture.
Last edited:
Did you post this on the thread you intended?
John said:
I showed in my post #87 that local ecclesia existed in OC times as families & synagogues, meetings for worship, prayer & instruction in the Law. They had Sabbath worship, shepherds/pastors, even a type of communion in the homes - the Passover meal. These local ecclesia/church gatherings did not replace the great festivals of the OC, (OC universal church) but they did form a pattern for the churches formed under the NC.
"Pattern prophecy" would be a helpful discussion topic, as we seek to understand OC prophecy in terms of NC fulfilment.
I love the reference in Malachi:
3:16 Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another,
And the Lord listened and heard them;
So a book of remembrance was written before Him
For those who fear the Lord
And who meditate on His name.
17 “They shall be Mine,” says the Lord of hosts,
“On the day that I make them My jewels.
And I will spare them
As a man spares his own son who serves him.”
18 Then you shall again discern
Between the righteous and the wicked,
Between one who serves God
And one who does not serve Him.
And the Lord listened and heard them;
So a book of remembrance was written before Him
For those who fear the Lord
And who meditate on His name.
17 “They shall be Mine,” says the Lord of hosts,
“On the day that I make them My jewels.
And I will spare them
As a man spares his own son who serves him.”
18 Then you shall again discern
Between the righteous and the wicked,
Between one who serves God
And one who does not serve Him.
Yes.
Both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist so I'm not impressed.
Based on the hermeneutic of most Amillennialists and Postmillennialists, what if you turn out to be just "types and shadows" since God is under no obligation to keep his covenants?
prophecy70
Active Member
irrelevant to this. Martin Luther taught a similar thing as well so should we disregard the Reformation?
prophecy70
Active Member
Which covenant do we believe he did not keep?
PrmtvBptst1832 is actually rejecting the teaching of Hebrews specifically & the whole teaching of Jesus & his Apostles who apply the Covenant teaching of the OC Scriptures to the NC Church, which, of course, includes all the Jews & Israelites who have responded to the Gospel.
He ignores the statement of the OC in Exodus 19 as if the "if" wasn't there. He also ignores the very first promise to Abram in Gen. 12.
No, my point is that people quote the "church fathers" as if it settles the question once and for all.
Do you believe Jeremiah 31:35-37?
How am I rejecting the teaching of Hebrews? Certainly those promises apply to us because we are participating in them. You are the one who rejects Jesus and his apostles.
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:28)
That makes sense when one considers that Josephus uses the same word "regeneration" (Gr., παλιγγενεσία) for the restoration of the Jewish nation after the exile (Antiquities 11, 3, 9). How would the disciples have understood it? It is called the grammatical-historical method of Biblical interpretation. If you do not adhere to it, the possibilities of what any passage of Scripture might mean are endless. You are in the middle of the ocean without rudder or compass. What if I want to claim that Matthew 19:28 teaches the people of England are genetically, racially, and linguistically the direct descendants" of the "Ten Lost Tribes" of ancient Israel (British Israelism). There is nothing in your hermeneutic that would logically prevent it.
Iconoclast and Covenanter have piled on so many posts over the weekend that there is no way I can answer them without spending hours of time needed for other things: many papers I have to correct from two block classes, preparation for the two classes I am now teaching (Greek 102 and a brand new class, Bible Translaiton Theory and Practice, for a brand new MA in Bible Translation our seminary is offering--awesome!); taking a seminary class myself; our new Japanese NT, etc.
I will just answer one point here, which is that I said that the type was a figure of speech, but Iconoclast said it wasn't. I discussed with my son, who teaches hermeneutics, and he pointed out that a type is a literal historical event illustrating a literal past historical event--therefore it cannot be a figure of speech, since those are not literal. So, Iconoclast, you were right--except that a type is literal.
Beyond that, Icon accused me of so many things in his posts. I don't respond well to bullying (who does?), so I'm just going to abandon any more posts on this thread. For Icon: I don't have to reply to any of your posts, so your demands that I do ring hollow. As I have told you many times, you have long and involved posts, and often your points are irrelevant.
Having said those things, I see a great need for a thread on figures of speech, so I will start one, hoping that everyone can keep to the subject--which has not happened here.
I will just answer one point here, which is that I said that the type was a figure of speech, but Iconoclast said it wasn't. I discussed with my son, who teaches hermeneutics, and he pointed out that a type is a literal historical event illustrating a literal past historical event--therefore it cannot be a figure of speech, since those are not literal. So, Iconoclast, you were right--except that a type is literal.
Beyond that, Icon accused me of so many things in his posts. I don't respond well to bullying (who does?), so I'm just going to abandon any more posts on this thread. For Icon: I don't have to reply to any of your posts, so your demands that I do ring hollow. As I have told you many times, you have long and involved posts, and often your points are irrelevant.
Having said those things, I see a great need for a thread on figures of speech, so I will start one, hoping that everyone can keep to the subject--which has not happened here.
- Status