Epoisses
New member
Because you worship Israel of the flesh and reject Israel of the Spirit. Am I getting close?
How the Gospel Works
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Because you worship Israel of the flesh and reject Israel of the Spirit. Am I getting close?
Right Divider
Body part
No.
Right Divider
Body part
Lon
Well-known member
Wiki does a good job of explaining Covenant Theology, I believe. I went to an Acts 2 Dispensational seminary. In it, we had a few professors you'd be hard pressed to tell, if they were Covenant or Dispensational, because something from both perspectives were taught. Albert H. Baylis, theology professor at Multnomah, wrote Creation to the Cross. You'd be hard pressed to figure out if he is Covenant or Acts 2 Dispensational (he's Acts 2). So while I empathize with Mid Acts, having been through both, these other two perspectives do derive from scripture. The motto of Multnomah is: "If you want Bible, you want Multnomah." I was very pleased with my instruction there. -Lon
Right Divider
Body part
I realize that you're very accommodating to various positions and I can appreciate that, but the "Two Covenant" theory is definitely not found in the Bible. There is nowhere that it says that God gave Adam a "covenant of works".
I realize that AMR and Nang will go on and on and on explaining that it is true with their "theology proper" and other such ramblings.
Even the Acts 2 version of dispensationalism is horribly confused and also requires lengthy explanations to "prove" itself. A classic example would be Ryrie's concept that the dispensation of the grace of God began in Acts 2 but nobody knew about it until Paul. :kookoo:
From the Wikipedia page that you referenced:
So I guess that this disagrees with AMR and Nang who have consistently claimed TWO covenants.
I also note the heavy use of 'weasel words' to pretend to "help" with the plain and simple message in the Bible.
As Sherman has well said, the Bible is simple and these explanations are not.
Last edited:
Which one do you reject?
Lon
Well-known member
This isn't that hard. Dispensationalists, too, believe God has a 'separate' plan for Israel. In a nutshell, these are the two, in Christ made one. The real difference (I think) isn't this, but whether that plan for Israel is yet future and separate. MAD definitely sees something unique with Israel as opposed to gentiles, yet, even. As such, I 'think' you have to see that it'd signify two different plans (covenants). More than that? That becomes more of a dispensational discussion. Granted, there is a difference between covenant and dispensation, by emphasis. In Him -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
This series that RD was talking about on Calvinism, listed three Covenants: Works, Grace, and Redemption. It also talked of the biblical covenants and the way Wesleyians are (or were) Covenant. Theopedia gives the same three, stating that they are particular to Presbyterians and some Reformed Baptists. I realize the difference between Israel and gentiles isn't the focus of the Covenant of Works and Grace but they certainly are part of both of those, and I think it worth the mention to start there. In Him -Lon
Right Divider
Body part
Made up.
Cross Reference
New member
What makes you think so when Jesus "held in trust" the whole Godhead?
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Theopedia is a good start, but the matter of the covenant of redemption as an actual covenant as properly understood has been and remains the topic of much discussion.
Edwards considered the CoR and CoG to be essentially one and the same. Historically, those who advocated the covenant of redemption as a distinct covenant still called the covenant of grace the applicatory part of the covenant of redemption and thereby nullified their own contention that they were two different covenants. Practically, the idea that the believer has two different covenant interests is confusing. For those advocating a CoR, to Our Lord it was promised, pace the CoR, to be rewarded, upon fulfilling the conditions, to be seated at the right hand and rule the world, etc. To believers in the CoG it was promised forgiveness of sins (which obviously doesn't apply to Christ). These truths are not compromised by regarding them as one and the same covenant because one and the same covenant makes different provisions for the Head and body respectively.
The WCF, WLC, and WSC make no mention of the CoR. It is "the Sum of Saving Knowledge", often published with these Standards, but not officially part of them, that distinctly refers to the CoR, the aspect which does not have explicit or by-name description in the Standards.
Some like myself, tend to view this CoR as a counsel of peace, an eternal decree of God revealing the Triune covenant life via the establishment of a covenant ad extra of the Triune existence with mankind dealing with sin, grace, death, redemption, all to His glory.
AMR
Nang
TOL Subscriber
God has promised mankind either death or life.
Two covenants. Revealed through the representations and actions of two Adams.
No more complicated than that . . .
Epoisses
New member
Amen. Dispy's with their multiplication of covenants and gospels is almost laughable if it weren't so sad.
Lon
Well-known member
I think too, people are looking for 'covenant.' Certainly "...on the day you eat of it, you will die..." is a promise, or a fact, or what-have-you. I think sometimes 'covenant' loses people. As long as people are looking for a scripture or two, to make sense of something, I tend to agree it is a better place to argue a point. I can, by extension, argue the doctrine of the trinity until the cows come home but I think giving solid verses from the Bible that spell it out and fairly essential for dissenting discussion. It seems clear that scriptures are necessary here too, else it is beyond even a willingness to 'see what we got/are saying." In Him
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I agree, hence my claim the CoR is not what we would normally call a covenant, rather, as Hoeksema would argue, a counsel of peace.
AMR
Yeah, but as I have long observed in far too many a Believer - get your doctrine from an over reliance on the reasonings of men in their ever endless writings of books "about," and what you wind up comparing is not so much Scripture with Scripture, but the reasoning of men in their endless writings and traditions.
When I first became a Believer, I found that over reliance really odd.
People of A Book ever spouting books "about."
I still find that odd.
Kind of like watching a documentary, say "about" beach sand - in contrast to simply going down to the beach, taking off one's shoes, and walking in the sand.
A Scripture or two?
Fair enough.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11, 12.
