The Eternal Covenant of Grace.

[Zaatar71]

Gill is over the top with Sovereignty, he viewed the Elect justified before they came to actual faith in Christ.

This leads to several other problems related to "hyper."

That is not what the Calvinists believe that I know personally.

Yes, but his ideas were not fully developed.

Now, I asked you this also;
What is Your understanding of The Covenant of Redemption?
What is your understandings of the Covenant of Grace?

Show from the quotes where you differ.
Offer a link that you believe answers to what Alan has shared

 

[Charlie24]

Yes, but his ideas were not fully developed.

Now, I asked you this also;
What is Your understanding of The Covenant of Redemption?
What is your understandings of the Covenant of Grace?

Show from the quotes where you differ.
Offer a link that you believe answers to what Alan has shared

"Yes, but...?

Alan believes it or He wouldn't be posting Gill's commentary.

I'm pointing out that it's based on Hyper-Calvinism.

 

[JonC]

In History much theology began to be ironed out and over time some things became clearer.
The problem in much of the historical theology is they lacked much in the way of perspective.
Before the printing press the historical ideas were more subject to corruption with some of the men being unsaved men. Much discussion of the history is subjective. Those opposed to grace attempt to frame it in a way to is favourable to those points that they reject.

Well, systematic theologies are always subjective to an extent.

I have seen the argument that earlier Chriatians lacked perspective. I think we all do, to some extent, because we are living life. This is the reason we held for so long about why Penal Substitution Theory did not exist prior to the work of the Reformation (the Apostalic Church focused on evangelism, the Early Church persecution, Ansrlm irony out a workable throry but was influenced by the medieval focus on honor, Aquinas ironed out some of that but was Roman Catholic and focused on original sin rather than indi ideal sins, Calvin finished the ironing).

It is logical. One issue is addressed but ither issues not identified or simoly not an issue of the time. So theology is slowly refined. Errors are removed, corrections made, and you have a better version.

But there is another logical conclusion. I tend (as you probably guess) that this process ultimately builds error on error. In my example, what if Anselm's premise was completely wrong, and Aquiinas merely adapted thatcerror ti the understanding contemporary to his time, and Calvin, thinking he was correcting error, allowed his theology to be shaped by the philosophy he had studied in university (Renaissance Legal Humanism).

If the second is correct then Calvin was a move farther away from truth than Anselm (he built on error).


But both are logical. The ultimate standard should be which of any theology most aligns with the biblical text.

 

[Brightfame52]

Gill is over the top with Sovereignty, he viewed the Elect justified before they came to actual faith in Christ.

They were Justified before they came to Faith and that's why they came to Faith, for the just shall live by Faith.

 

[Charlie24]

They were Justified before they came to Faith and that's why they came to Faith, for the just shall live by Faith.

Hello, BF. I didn't mean any disrespect toward you when I used you for an example.

But you have proven my point!

I'm not looking for an argument, I was just making a statement that ended up in the crosshairs.

 

[Brightfame52]

Hello, BF. I didn't mean any disrespect toward you when I used you for an example.

But you have proven my point!

I'm not looking for an argument, I was just making a statement that ended up in the crosshairs.

Okay

 

[Zaatar71]

Hello, BF. I didn't mean any disrespect toward you when I used you for an example.

But you have proven my point!

I'm not looking for an argument, I was just making a statement that ended up in the crosshairs.

Bf is not saying what you think. He is saying, they were justified...that is from the Divine side. When Jesus said it was finished, it was. The effectual calling and being drawn to saving faith, is going from death to life.
The fact is it was a Covenant death, so when Jesus said it was finished, there was no further work necessary to make anyone, anymore Justified. Nothing can be added to the Perfect once for all sacrifice.

 

[Charlie24]

Bf is not saying what you think. He is saying, they were justified...that is from the Divine side. When Jesus said it was finished, it was. The effectual calling and being drawn to saving faith, is going from death to life.
The fact is it was a Covenant death, so when Jesus said it was finished, there was no further work necessary to make anyone, anymore Justified. Nothing can be added to the Perfect once for all sacrifice.

As usual we have a different definition of Biblical words, in this case "justification."

Paul said we are justified by Grace through faith. He didn't mention anything from the Calvinist dictionary.

 

[kyredneck]

Paul said we are justified by Grace through faith.

Concerning justification (from Romans alone), Paul said:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

 

[Charlie24]

Concerning justification (from Romans alone), Paul said:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

The theme is we can't justify ourselves by works, only God can justify by faith in the Blood of Christ.

Christ told the Jews, "Moses gave you the Law and none of you have kept it."

Paul is saying if you're trying to be justified by the Law, then you must do/keep the Law.

Paul said no man can be justified by doing/keeping the Law.

Fallen man can't keep the Law, the Law condemns man to death for this reason.

 

[JonC]

The Bible says "ABC". It seems that people will go to great lengths to believe the Bible teaches anything but "ABC"

I do not understand why, and this is strange to me because I once went to great lengths as well to see different letters. It didn't seem like great lengths at the time. But I can't for the life of me remember how I did it.

 

[kyredneck]

The theme is we can't justify ourselves by works,

The theme is God renders to every man according to his works!

Romans Chapter 2

6​	who will render to every man according to his works:
7​	to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8​	but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9​	tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10​	but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
11​	for there is no respect of persons with God.
12​	For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13​	for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14​	(for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15​	in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

 

[Charlie24]

The theme is God renders to every man according to his works!

Romans Chapter 2

6​	who will render to every man according to his works:
7​	to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8​	but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9​	tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10​	but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
11​	for there is no respect of persons with God.
12​	For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13​	for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14​	(for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15​	in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

Yes, we reap what we sow!

If you depend on the keeping of the Law/doing to earn salvation, you will be judged accordingly.

 

[kyredneck]

Yes, we reap what we sow!

Oh 'great Calvinist-slayer in your own mind', you totally miss the gist of the point made:

...do by nature the things of the law...
....they show the work of the law written in their hearts...

 

[Zaatar71]

As usual we have a different definition of Biblical words, in this case "justification."

Paul said we are justified by Grace through faith. He didn't mention anything from the Calvinist dictionary.

Well, you got your Calvinist quip in Charlie, but you have not actually answered any of the questions, I will repeat it and add one;Now, I asked you this also;
What is Your understanding of The Covenant of Redemption?
What is your understandings of the Covenant of Grace?

Show from the quotes where you differ.
Offer a link that you believe answers to what Alan has shared