new book on Covenant Theology

[kyredneck]

And yet in places where prophecy is not in apocalyptic language, such as Matt ch 24-25, there are those who throw out all sense of the normal usage of the words in English and insist that Jesus returned in AD 70 simply because the Roman army sacked Jerusalem.

13 And the lord of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him.
14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned one with another, saying, This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
15 And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
16 He will come and destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
17 But he looked upon them, and said, What then is this that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner?
18 Every one that falleth on that stone shall be broken to pieces; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
19 And the scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him in that very hour; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he spake this parable against them. Lu 20

26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
29 even so ye also, when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors.
30 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished. Mark 13

But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Mt 10:23

Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Mt 16 :28

But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26:64

 

[thomas15]

...What exactly is the Covenant of Works?

Genesis 3:22 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "--

How exactly is this any kind of covenant, much more a covenant of works?

 

[thomas15]

...26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
29 even so ye also, when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors.
....

above is an excerpt quote from your post without all the bling.



If you could demonstrate from the history books what would be the one of the greatest historical events of all time (the second coming of Christ) then you could win many to your cause. But history is basically silent on this small detail of major importance.

It seems to be of no concern to the preterist crowd, those who rely on the teachings of the ECFs and the 15th century reformers for aid and comfort with respect to the covenant aspect of their theology but cannot look to those same writings to find comfort in their preterist thinking. Brother Kim Riddlebarger holds the preterist in almost as much contempt as the dispies.

 

[kyredneck]

....the preterist crowd, those who rely on the teachings of the ECFs and the 15th century reformers for aid....

Look long and hard in post #61 for any of that. I used only one source (which I notice you didn't use). And I quoted only the tip of the iceberg; there's many more imminent return passages than those (but you know that, you've heard and ignored them all).

 

[MorseOp]

How exactly is this any kind of covenant, much more a covenant of works?

thomas,

Would you mind if I quoted part of an article on the Covenant of Works? I ask because I generally like to do my own heavy lifting, but time constraints being what they are I would like to reference an explanation that shares my opinion on the matter.

 

[Luke2427]

So what you are insisting on is this: since some prophecy is in apocalypic language, the dispies are incorrect in their interpretation and the reformed covenant a-mil crowd is correct. And since the Bible contains some apocalypic language, Israel in the OT means the Church in the NT. Not trying to put words in you mouth but only trying to get a full understanding of the thinking that goes on here.

The dispies often argue on here that their eschatology proceeds from a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible.

It comes off as though they are more faithful exegetes for doing so.

We who've had an eschatology that is older than a hundred and fifty years old, know better.

We know that MOST apocalyptic language is not literal at all. We know that faithful exegesis requires that you NOT treat as literal that which is not given as literal.

We know that the Bible is one congruous unit telling one story of redemption not one in which there are all kinds of different ages that are basically unrelated.

We understand that the Bible clearly teaches that those who are of FAITH are Abraham's seed.

This is the difference.

 

[asterisktom]

The Covenant of Works existed before the Covenant of Redemption.

What exactly is the Covenant of Works?

Genesis 3:22 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "--

The only tree that Adam was forbidden to eat from was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life He was able to eat from. We are never told why Adam did not eat from the tree of life prior to eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Covenant of Works operates under the assumption that mankind would have maintained its intimate relationship with God as long as sin did not enter into the picture. Eventually Adam would have eaten from the tree of life and lived in perpetual obedience to God. We know from the garden narrative that this did not happen. Adam ate of the fruit from the forbidden tree and sin ensued; both to Adam and his posterity. As an act of grace God prevented Adam from eating from the tree of life; thus sparing Adam an eternity of sin. Adam truly was the first moral free agent in that he had no sin nature when he was created, although he had the ability to sin (posse pecare).

The Covenant of Works reminds us of God's standard.

1 Peter 1:16 16 because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."

With the Covenant of Works broken God inaugurated the Covenant of Redemption. Starting with the first shedding of blood (Genesis 3:21), God initiated this covenant (also called the Covenant of Grace) that would culminate with the coming of Jesus and His sacrificial death on the cross. The C.o.R. is seen in the establishment of the ceremonial law and the sacrificial system. Over and over again God's standard of holiness continually pointed to man's sinfulness and condemnation. The sacrificial system provided a means of receiving grace and forgiveness, albeit temporary. We see God's grace towards the Gentiles (Rahab and Nineveh et. al). When Christ came everything that the C.o.R. pointed towards became fulfilled. Eventually it will reach its apex at the beginning of the eternal state. At that time everyone who is saved will have the right to eat of the tree of life (Revelation 22:14). What Adam lost will be completely restored.

I believe one of the foundational mistakes Covenant Theologians make is their imposing a Covenant of Works on Adam. No such thing happened.

According to the WCF:
"The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."

Now where is there such a promise in the Bible? Adam already had life. He had a perfect arrangement of divinely designed blessedness. Where was he promised more than this? Verse 22 (nor anywhere else) has no mention of any such promise given to Adam. Yet a promise of reward is inherent in the very definition of covenant.

There was no promise of life if he remained obedient. Rather he was warned of death if he was disobedient.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Tom,

There was no promise of life if he remained obedient. Rather he was warned of death if he was disobedient

It sounds like only one thing would cause life to cease.....He was allowed everything else.Being everything is ordained of God....there is no what if:thumbs: The fact that the tree of life is blocked, but we see it at the end of Revelation is significant.

22 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

 

[Iconoclast]

13 And the lord of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him.
14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned one with another, saying, This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
15 And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
16 He will come and destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
17 But he looked upon them, and said, What then is this that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner?
18 Every one that falleth on that stone shall be broken to pieces; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
19 And the scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him in that very hour; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he spake this parable against them. Lu 20

26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
29 even so ye also, when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors.
30 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished. Mark 13

But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Mt 10:23

Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Mt 16 :28

But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26:64

No one answers these verses because they cannot.:thumbs:

 

[MorseOp]

I believe one of the foundational mistakes Covenant Theologians make is their imposing a Covenant of Works on Adam. No such thing happened.

According to the WCF:
"The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."

Now where is there such a promise in the Bible? Adam already had life. He had a perfect arrangement of divinely designed blessedness. Where was he promised more than this? Verse 22 (nor anywhere else) has no mention of any such promise given to Adam. Yet a promise of reward is inherent in the very definition of covenant.

There was no promise of life if he remained obedient. Rather he was warned of death if he was disobedient.

Tom,

I understand the dispensational view and the reason it rejects Covenant Theology. I respect that opinion, although I obviously disagree with it. The Covenant of Works is based on the breadth of scripture where God reminds the disobedient of His standard of complete obedience (holiness). Man's sinful condition exists because of disobedience. It is logical to assume that man would not be in this condition if sin never entered the world. I know, I am over simplifying it, but I am doing so on purpose. Perhaps people do want to debate this, but since CT is found mostly among Reformed Baptists (within the Baptist genre), I do not see it as something that most Baptists are even interested in discussing. After all, we have not worn out Calvinism yet!

 

[Yeshua1]

The dispies often argue on here that their eschatology proceeds from a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible.

It comes off as though they are more faithful exegetes for doing so.

We who've had an eschatology that is older than a hundred and fifty years old, know better.

We know that MOST apocalyptic language is not literal at all. We know that faithful exegesis requires that you NOT treat as literal that which is not given as literal.

We know that the Bible is one congruous unit telling one story of redemption not one in which there are all kinds of different ages that are basically unrelated.

We understand that the Bible clearly teaches that those who are of FAITH are Abraham's seed.

This is the difference.

Bible teaches also that God is NOT done dealing with national isreal, as he still has those 7 years from daniel, referred to time of jacobs folly, which will be in endtimes AFTER Church is raptured out todeal with his peoples of Isreal, jewish nation once again!

Ezekiels vision of the dead bones being alive again was to national isreal, and their coming back to the land did NOT fulfill that, as that waits for Second Coming, when yeshua pours out and opens up a fountain in jerusalem than, and all isrel of that time shall be saved!

 

[Luke2427]

Bible teaches also that God is NOT done dealing with national isreal, as he still has those 7 years from daniel, referred to time of jacobs folly, which will be in endtimes AFTER Church is raptured out todeal with his peoples of Isreal, jewish nation once again!

The Bible teaches no such thing.

NOBODY ever even HEARD of such a notion before 1830.

Were it not for Scofield and charismatics almost nobody would still know anything about it.

Ezekiels vision of the dead bones being alive again was to national isreal, and their coming back to the land did NOT fulfill that, as that waits for Second Coming, when yeshua pours out and opens up a fountain in jerusalem than, and all isrel of that time shall be saved!

One thing that could not be clearer in Scripture is that those who are of FAITH are the children of Abraham.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Bible teaches no such thing.

NOBODY ever even HEARD of such a notion before 1830.

Were it not for Scofield and charismatics almost nobody would still know anything about it.



One thing that could not be clearer in Scripture is that those who are of FAITH are the children of Abraham.

Not disagreeing with you on that, its just that the Kingdom was taken away from isreal to theChurch, per prophecy, but isreal still in plan of God!

 

[percho]

Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: Jer. 3:14


Would you say that has taken place, that is being done presently, that will take place in the future.

What is Zion?

What does it mean one of a city, two of a family? Would this be a remnant of, or the whole?

Does the word teach that there will be a remnant elected of which the whole shall seek for?

Does the word teach that God is doing a work in the world through the whole family he brought up from the land of Egypt the only people he intimately knew of all the families of the earth and is doing it through the Christ who came from one family of the whole family brought up out of Egypt?

Did somewhere along the line of time, God change his mind about what he was doing to do and how he was going to do it?

Was the first covenant given for salvation or to show that man would not and could not live holy enough for salvation and that salvation would have to be given as a gift by the second covenant which is mediated by the seed of Abraham the Christ through faith?

For this the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Is God doing this because we believe or is God doing this because of the faith of Jesus the Christ?

 

[Grasshopper]

Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: Jer. 3:14


Would you say that has taken place, that is being done presently, that will take place in the future.

What is Zion?

What does it mean one of a city, two of a family? Would this be a remnant of, or the whole?

Does the word teach that there will be a remnant elected of which the whole shall seek for?

Does the word teach that God is doing a work in the world through the whole family he brought up from the land of Egypt the only people he intimately knew of all the families of the earth and is doing it through the Christ who came from one family of the whole family brought up out of Egypt?

Did somewhere along the line of time, God change his mind about what he was doing to do and how he was going to do it?

Was the first covenant given for salvation or to show that man would not and could not live holy enough for salvation and that salvation would have to be given as a gift by the second covenant which is mediated by the seed of Abraham the Christ through faith?

For this the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Is God doing this because we believe or is God doing this because of the faith of Jesus the Christ?

Hebrews 12:12
English Standard Version (©2001)
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,

 

[asterisktom]

Tom,

I understand the dispensational view and the reason it rejects Covenant Theology. I respect that opinion, although I obviously disagree with it. The Covenant of Works is based on the breadth of scripture where God reminds the disobedient of His standard of complete obedience (holiness). Man's sinful condition exists because of disobedience. It is logical to assume that man would not be in this condition if sin never entered the world. I know, I am over simplifying it, but I am doing so on purpose. Perhaps people do want to debate this, but since CT is found mostly among Reformed Baptists (within the Baptist genre), I do not see it as something that most Baptists are even interested in discussing. After all, we have not worn out Calvinism yet!

Please understand that I am not a Dispensationalist. Just being against the CoW does not put me in that camp. There are other isms as well.

You say the "Covenant of Works is based on the breadth of Scripture". This to me is very similar to what Dispies would say to me. When I argued against one of thir points, that it was not scriptural, they would say that the principle is in Scripture.

The point remains that the CoW, according to WCF's own definition, is not found in Scripture.

 

[MorseOp]

Tom, I did say I simplified it on purpose. I wasn't expecting to offer an exhaustive defense.

 

[thomas15]

thomas,

Would you mind if I quoted part of an article on the Covenant of Works? I ask because I generally like to do my own heavy lifting, but time constraints being what they are I would like to reference an explanation that shares my opinion on the matter.

I have numerous academic and semi-academic works on Covenant theology, history of doctrine, church history and the ECFs in hard copy... Thanks anyway.

 

[thomas15]

Please understand that I am not a Dispensationalist. Just being against the CoW does not put me in that camp. There are other isms as well.

You say the "Covenant of Works is based on the breadth of Scripture". This to me is very similar to what Dispies would say to me. When I argued against one of thir points, that it was not scriptural, they would say that the principle is in Scripture.

The point remains that the CoW, according to WCF's own definition, is not found in Scripture.

MorseOp, I'm on *toms iggylist so he will not see this but *tom is a preterist so he thinks that Jesus second coming in glory took place in AD 70 when the Roman Army sacked Jerusalem and demolished the Jewish Temple. As such we are now living in the kingdom of Christ with all but a few verses of prophecy in Rev left for future.

To *tom, Jerusalem = Babylon. Try making Babylon = Jerusalem from Gen. ch 1 to Rev 22 and see just how literal he takes the Bible. And try to live your life trusting a God who makes promises, then breaks said promise to one group of people then imagine that you and I are any better at keeping said God's laws in our own life and think that is God will keep his promises to us because we are special.

 

[asterisktom]

MorseOp, I'm on *toms iggylist so he will not see this but ...

Oh good grief. You keep saying this, Thomas. Give it a rest. You are not on my iggylist. I don't know what you are trying to prove by repeating yourself like that.

And you are one of several I've met that really shouldn't try to summarize my Preterism. Your description of what I believe is very inaccurate. For starters there is a very important verse that is still future, and that is Hebrews 9:27.

Neither do I make Babylon = Jerusalem from Gen. ch 1 to Rev 22. I don't know where you get any of this, nor do I really care. Other than the fact that you just foisted onto this board more tiresome disinformation.