Semantics?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dustin,

I agree with Christopher in his assessment of your thought process. You are on the right track.

Some of the questions you brought up in terms of how decrees realte in eternity past is ANOTHER big discussion on the lapsarian issue. Some are supralapsarian, some are sublapsarian, some are infralapsarian. There is a very good work called "Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition" by Fesko that deals with this issue in-depth. It is quite helpful. (However, be prepared to have your mind twisted and turned inside out - there is much to consider on that playing field...)

The reason I bring that up because the "relationships" as MDB brought up are important. It will not necessarily affect the RELATIONSHIP of the covenants that lapsarianism will dictate depending upon the camp one falls into, but it will dictate how "someone" think about how "God thinks about" how He ordained everything.

Keep studying!!
 
MDB,

You say:

[quote:2f4143d6a6]From your comments, you seem to definitely be on the right track in understanding all of this.
[/quote:2f4143d6a6]

On the right track? Or, maybe I already do understand?! Remember the name of this topic. I'm not trying to understand [i:2f4143d6a6]what[/i:2f4143d6a6] Covenant Theology says the Covenant of Works is, but, how they explain its intricacies. A system of theology sometimes complicates terminology. Also, a system will sometimes complicate theology. So, my intent is to better understand how you, and other Covenant camp people (I mean that with no disrespect), explain these systems.

For instance, both you and I would agree that God commanded Adam not to do something. Adam was created to respond to God as He did. So God was then in an agreement with Adam that bore heavy ramifications if transgressed. You call this a Covenant of Works. That's fine. The terms of Gods command were based on Adams works. I would be ok with saying that as well, although I wouldn't find calling it that specifically, detrimental to my understanding or explaining it.

We would both say that there was a time period in between Gods command and the transgression. This is chronological. You call that a probationary period. That's fine. I believe that is a term that is unwarranted, but not critical. Regardless of whether it was a probationary period, a testing period, or simply an unknown frame of time ordained by God (which it was I find in Scripture), the results are the same.

We both say that Adam was already living in a state of right relationship with God. He had all that he needed in the Garden. Thus, had he not transgressed the commandment of God, he would have continued to enjoy this state of existence. Covenant Theology says that the reward for perfect obedience to Gods commandment would have been eternal life, yes? I agree, albeit acknowledging (as Web did) that this could have never been because God decreed it would not be so.

Have I missed any of the big details? I know there are smaller, more intimate, details. However, is that the grand scope?

I do appreciate your input and patience with me. Web, you too. I know that for you guys this must be frustrating becuase you've already got it all down succinctly. Just keep praying that God would refine you through my ignorance.

:banghead:

In Him,

Dustin...
 
"Realistically, however, no law could lead to life (Gal. 3). Adam's fate, and consequently, our fate, was already predestined. "

1) This statement of Paul to the Galatians is regarding works based righteousness of DEPRAVED men. He is not discussing a meritorious system with a pre-fall adam. Paul's rebuke to sinful Jews and God fearing gentiles cannot negate a meritorious covenant of works.

2)we must not be fatalistic in our dealing with God's sovereignty. God's ordination is not in opposition to the responsibilty of man, nor is it against the will. God ordains both means and ends. Just as Christ's ordained works were necessary for our salvation, Adam's ordained works were necessary for our fall. In each case there were real human decisions that God ordained to be a means to his ordained ends. We do not have fates, there are simply fixed ends determined by God.

The danger inherent in missing this point is that we end up with a morbid determism. This is the calvinism that the Arminian imagines in his nitemares. A salvation without repentence, a damnation without sin. In both cases the Arminian, the hypercalvinist, or the fatalist, denies God's decree of means and ends.
 
Iantrell,

You say:

[quote:b2ede88b80]Adam's ordained works were necessary for our fall. In each case there were real human decisions that God ordained to be a means to his ordained ends. [/quote:b2ede88b80]

Agreed. Galatians 3:10 still applies. There will never be a law that can lead to life. The Garden pointed to the total inability of works to justify. Praise God for grace!

In Him,

Dustin...
 
Dustin, Don't ever think everyone has things down pat. I read all I can I find new things to incorporate every day. i look at other things I should study and haven't and shake my head - so much to learn and so little time.

Take you time and digest things slowly. You are eating some big steaks on these issues.
 
Web,

I had replied a moment ago, but it disappeared.

Anyway, I agree with your words. None of us ever have it down pat. Every time I think I have "it" down pat, God twists it a bit to remind me that He will not be put in a box. Do you apply that same maxim to your own study? I ask in seriousness, not as an accusation.

I have found that systems, any system, tends to drive the hermeneutic rather than allowing the Scripture to just say what it says apart from adhering to some camp or system. When I study I deeply desire to see Scripture for what it says apart from a camp, system, or ulterior motive. Thus, I try even not to read my own thoughts I have now, into the Scripture. This way, when I draw a conclusion about something, it's not because the system said it, a respected writer says it, or because my "camp" says it, but because Scripture says it.

In Him,

Dustin...
 
Dustin,

[quote:6e229d7edb]"Do you apply that same maxim to your own study?"[/quote:6e229d7edb]

Yes, but I also remind myself that God has given us revelation so we can know and understand him as much as we are able. We all believe we can know things about God and that God reveals himself to us in certain ways over and above others ways (God is infinite, eternal, etc. and does not have feathers though Psalm 90 would make you think He did). So hermeneutics ([i:6e229d7edb]proper [/i:6e229d7edb]biblical interpretation) is vitally important.

I can't put God in a box, but that does not mean I cannot understand maxims and axiomatic theology surrounding given revelation. There is a line we must balance on here.
 
Web,

[quote:8444fc4cc0]Yes, but I also remind myself that God has given us revelation so we can know and understand him as much as we are able. [/quote:8444fc4cc0]

Of course. And that revelation is always tested against itself, not a system. That was my point.

[quote:8444fc4cc0]We all believe we can know things about God and that God reveals himself to us in certain ways over and above others ways (God is infinite, eternal, etc. and does not have feathers though Psalm 90 would make you think He did).[/quote:8444fc4cc0]

Correct. Again, I agree. God, in His word, has revealed these things to us.

[quote:8444fc4cc0]So hermeneutics (proper biblical interpretation) is vitally important. [/quote:8444fc4cc0]

Right. Which is why I study Scripture apart from anothers systematized way of thinking. As you rightly said, [i:8444fc4cc0]proper[/i:8444fc4cc0] Biblical interpretation is critical.

[quote:8444fc4cc0]I can't put God in a box, but that does not mean I cannot understand maxims and axiomatic theology surrounding given revelation.[/quote:8444fc4cc0]

We all understand maxims and axiomatic theology to the best of our abilities, yes? And you are right, these things [i:8444fc4cc0]must[/i:8444fc4cc0] be determined, as best we can determine them, in their surrounding context, in the proper context, and apart from a systems presuppositions.

[quote:8444fc4cc0] There is a line we must balance on here.[/quote:8444fc4cc0]

And I agree. It seems to me like we agree on a great many things.

In Him,

Dustin...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top